"If we have not heard from you by December 23rd we will interpret your silence as your continued unwillingness to repent and will proceed to share it with our immediate church membership in the time and setting that we deem wise and discreet."
Letter to Marie from the Elders at Heritage Bible Chapel
According to the History of Heritage Bible Chapel, it "began as a small but faithful group, with its first public meeting being held at The Princeton Center on December 10, 2000." What in the world has happened to this 'faithful group' 16 years later? Based on our eight years of researching Christian trends, Dee and I have a pretty good idea…
HBC's history reveals that the founding pastor retired in June 2011, and in July 2012 a new pastor named Tim Cochrell was hired. Tim's bio reveals that he received his B.A. in Bible at Cedarville University and completed his Th.M. at Dallas Theological Seminary. The bio then states that
Tim recently earned his Ph.D. in Leadership from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
From what we have been able to surmise, Heritage Bible Chapel underwent some changes about a year and a half ago. That means Tim had been serving as pastor at HBC for about three years when the 'changes' took place.
Folks, this is straight out of the Neo-Cal playbook, which Southern Seminary grads (including Ph.D.'s) have mastered… What's so tragic is that an unsuspecting congregation has no clue until it's too late…
Here's how it happens… A church hires a new pastor, and during the first few years he 'grooms' certain men in the congregation to serve as elders. If a church has a deacon board, church polity will be changed to 'elder-led'. In all likelihood, these so-called 'elders' will be yes men. Once the pastor and his buddies are in charge, the congregation is essentially rendered powerless. We have seen this happen time and time again at various churches around the country.
Now let's get back to Marie's situation. In the recent correspondence she received from the HBC elders, they have demonstrated just how ruthless they are by making this idiotic statement:
"If we have not heard from you by December 23rd we will interpret your silence as your continued unwillingness to repent and will proceed to share it with our immediate church membership in the time and setting that we deem wise and discreet."
And to that we say . . . BAH HUMBUG!!!
We believe the elders at Heritage Bible Chapel have clearly demonstrated their hearts of stone (and right before Christmas no less!)
Perhaps you are wondering whether Marie is the only HBC member who has ever been treated in such a cruel way. As a matter of fact, the horrendous way the elders are treating Marie is straight out of the playbook. How do we know? Because it has happened before to another woman at Heritage Bible Church. We are protecting her identity, but this is what she recently shared with us.
My story is far less extensive than Marie's but mirrors it in some regard. Some time ago my husband and I separated. We had been attending Heritage Bible Chapel (HBC) for approximately 9-10 years. Looking back, I am horrified that I received far more communication going through a divorce than I did when I struggled with infertility and subsequently delivered premature twins who then passed away shortly after birth. ONE person from that church made the trip to Boston to express condolences and see how I was doing, and it was a friend of mine who was a non elder/non leader of the church. The pastor at the time NEVER visited. Even after we were home. Anyhow I digress ….
My husband and I separated due to his verbal abuse. After taking the abuse and control for several years, I built a wall and finally asked my husband to leave. He went to Pastor Tim for counsel. Tim then began calling and texting me with regard to my "moving forward with an unbiblical divorce".
Shortly thereafter, my husband, upon receiving counsel from others, arrived home one day and announced that he was "not leaving" because I "could not ask him to leave or make him move out since this was his home". I immediately left and proceeded to lease a house nearby. We arranged a custody schedule that was suitable to both of us and our children.
Pastor Tim contacted me a few times attempting to persuade me to meet with him to discuss the situation and to reconcile with my husband. Instead of meeting with Tim, I sought outside Christian couples counseling. Not only that, my husband and I both had individual counseling.
Tim let me know that if I proceeded with this 'unbiblical' divorce he would present me to the church membership as an unbeliever and ask them to approach me as such. I was appalled and deeply hurt! My faith in the church was tested and I wavered more. I felt as if I bore a scarlet letter among my friends who largely attended HBC. (Turns out they were supportive).
I sent Heritage Bible Chapel a letter stating that I was resigning my membership and therefore, releasing HBC from any obligation to hold me accountable (i.e. continue the barrage of communication). Following the letter, I continued to receive communication. At this point, my estranged husband felt compelled to contact Tim, urging him to please leave me alone and forego his plan to "tell it to the congregation". My husband reported back to me that Tim responded by saying he "had to" continue. Why? Because I was a member of the "universal church" and therefore he was still obligated to proceed with the accountability measures.
At this point I emailed Tim and demanded that he stop the communication or I would take legal action. Following all that, I had great anxiety that someone was going to show up at my door. I also blocked the phone numbers of Tim as well as the elders. When a friend from HBC contacted me, I always began the conversation by asking whether they were contacting me of their own accord or because the church had asked them to call. It was such an anxiety ridden period of time!
A few months later, my husband and I reconciled for a period of time. At that point we both stopped attending HBC and found another church. The calls and contacts had stopped – I assume because we had gotten back together. Because I had blocked the calls months earlier, I hadno way of knowing whether communication from HBC was attempted or not. I never agreed to meet with anyone at Heritage Bible Chapel.
Several months later, my husband and I separated once again and the dissolution of our marriage did take place. We never received any communication from the church we were attending regarding our divorce. My ex-husband still attends the church we found together, and I have found a new church.
I think one reason the church, this church in particular, takes such a strong stand on this divorce thing is because it's one of the only tangible "sins" they can wrap their heads around and actually hold people accountable for. You can't go into somebody's bedroom and see their pornography, you can't control the abusive family member, you can't measure the amount of gossip that ensues through a church, etc. It's sickening though. I literally felt like I had a scarlet letter, and sometimes I still do. They really get into your head with really messed up information based on scripture taken out of context.
Finally, it cannot be overstated that the men at Heritage Bible Chapel have totally bought into the modus operandi as well. My ex-husband for example, still attempts to control every situation he's involved in with me and the kids.
We believe there are others who have been hurt by the current leadership at Heritage Bible Chapel, and we hope that in due time they will come forward and share their testimonies. As far as we are concerned, it is laughable that Tim earned a Ph.D. in "Leadership" from Southern Seminary (the mothership of the Neo-Cal movement). We have said it before, and we'll say it again… What are they teaching in seminary these days?
Dee and I have both spoken with Marie on numerous occasions, and we can assure the elders of Heritage Bible Chapel that she has no intention of communicating with you because she is no longer affiliated with the HBC congregation, having resigned her membership by certified letter on September 28, 2016.
Based on the above testimony by a former HBC member, we predict that Tim and his sycophant elders will soon declare Marie as an UNBELIEVER and will demand that the congregation treat her as such (shunning, etc).
Shun away folks. It will be a visible sign to Marie and others of the condition of your heart.
We are so grateful for this brave former member of Heritage Bible Chapel who has come forward with her story, and we wish we could have done something to help her at the time that she was 'dismembered' (no doubt it felt that way!) by her church family.
Fortunately for Marie, this time around is very different. Thanks to the internet, there are LOTS and LOTS of people watching to see what will happen…
We are asking everyone reading here to join us in praying for Marie and her family. May they feel God's incredible love during this Christmas season like never before.
I hope the women (and men) who have been harassed by this pastor simply pick up the phone, call the police, file police reports, and have him arrested.
These NeoCalvinist pastors think they are above our laws.
It’s time they face criminal prosecution for their criminal acts. We build jails and prisons in this country for the likes of “pastors/stalkers” like Tim. This guy isn’t just sick, but sickening. He also has no right to be in the clergy and doesn’t have the skill-set for the calling. He should step down immediately.
FUEHRERPRINZIP.
Very sad.
Longtime lurker here… I have to wonder if this controlling behavior on the part of HBC’s leadership stems from their root doctrine of predestination. What I mean is if a person has no control or say whether or not they get to choose their salvation or have been damned to hell by a capricious god, why should any person have control in other aspects of their lives. Submission to authority becomes a chief virtue, not love for your fellow man or woman. Just a thought.
Why the 23rd? Do they need to know so they can include an excommunication into their Christmas eve service?
@ Bill M:
I believe it yet another form of manipulation. Perhaps they are trying to initiate marital reconciliation two days before Christmas.
Major fail!
Marie should call the MA Attorney General, Maura Healy, @ (617) 727-2200 and file a complaint against HBC.
@ Sandra:
You may be onto something!
Deb wrote:
How dopey can you get? Yes to controlling and authoritarian, but this is moronic.
We are working diligently behind the scenes. We believe Marie’s story is going to be generating widespread interest. Of course, the pastors at HBC are going to come off looking like………….well, y’all can fill in the blanks.
Bill M wrote:
Ding ding ding.
Joe wrote:
Before that step, she should call her local law enforcement agency and file a police report against said “pastor” and work on getting him arrested and prosecuted. She’d be doing everyone else a favor. This guy needs to be STOPPED!
dee wrote:
They look like idjits to me.
Bless their hearts.
Is this drop dead date a consequence of the meeting that was to be held tonight? Any updates on that meeting? Was it held?
dee wrote:
Inmates?
Seriously, this “Pastor” Tim guy is seriously deranged. One thing I learned back in grade school is that when someone tells you to leave them alone, you LEAVE THEM ALONE. Marie could not have made it more clear that she wants to be left alone. Yet this guy and his cohorts aren’t taking the hint. They may call it “pursuing her in love” but if it looks like stalking and sounds like stalking…
The more stories I see like this one, the less marriage looks appealing to me.
I’m over 40, have never married, had thought I wanted to be, but I think now, if I meet the right guy, I’d be happy just shacking up with the person rather than marry –
After seeing how this church and others treat women who need to divorce their spouse, due to abuse or what have you.
Thanks Pastor Tim and HBC church for making marriage look awful!
Absolutely bang-up, excellent job making marriage look great to single adults – (sarcasm).
I’m also convinced now more than ever that HBC Church is part of Sky-Net and Rev. Tim is a T-800 cyborg terminator.
One point I’m a bit confused on – or maybe I’m misunderstanding.
With Marie, Rev. Tim seemed fine with separation as a solution of sorts.
But when this second Anonymous lady from this blog post separated from HER husband (maybe not legally, but literally, as she was living in another house from him), Rev. Tim chided her for that.
I might be misunderstanding, but it looks to me that Tim is inconsistent on if, in his view, women may live in a separate home from their husband. He says it’s okay for one woman to do so, but not for another.
These women are adults and can divorce if they wish to. As Ann Landers would’ve told Pastor Tim: M.Y.O.B.
Christians cannot agree on what a lot of the Bible means, by the way – not regarding complementarianism vs. egalitarianism, the timing of the Rapture (or if there will even be one), is baptism necessary for salvation, and on and on and on with many other subjects.
There are Bible-believing Christians who think God permits divorce for more than adultery only.
Seeing as how most Christians cannot even agree upon what the Bible teaches on so many subjects, including divorce,
I really think Christian women need to go with what they believe will be the safest and best choice for them, regardless of what guys like Rev. Tim or John Piper teach about divorce.
Rev. Tim is not living your life for you.
Rev. Tim is not the one who has to return home each night and eat dinner with or go to bed with a belligerent, verbally abusive, ingrate.
If you’re a woman married to an abuser, it falls on YOU to have to put up with the abuse, should you stay with the husband and not on Rev. Tim of HBC or John Piper.
I would not take advice, “biblical” or otherwise, from guys who don’t have to live with their own advice, or will not do so, or who do not have to live with the consequences of that advice.
Praying for Marie and her family. I am also praying for the other woman that has been abused by HBC. Praying Pastor Tim sees that what he is leading is hate, not love. HBC is a very unchristian place.
Sandra wrote:
If that is their reasoning, how is it they don’t know that God pre-destined Marie to divorce her husband? Maybe God in his sovereignty decreed that Marie would divorce her spouse, in which case, Rev. Tim is acting as a stumbling block to God’s work. 🙂
Bill M wrote:
I’m surprised they didn’t go with the 24th, which would have slightly more of a Grinch-like impact.
dee wrote:
The Church of Scientology?
@ Daisy:
You are my new BFF <3 <3
dee wrote:
Sons of Stan, or Satin ……. or however they spell it there?
Daisy wrote:
Talmidah wrote:
Perhaps we should sing “The Grinch” theme song, and replace the words “Mr. Grinch” with “Brother Tim”?
Daisy wrote:
They could have a Christmas Eve Excommunication Service! I bet they wish they could do floggings.
“If we have not heard from you by December 23rd we will interpret your silence as your continued unwillingness to repent and will proceed to share it with our immediate church membership in the time and setting that we deem wise and discreet.”
Wake up and smell the coffee, boys. A whole lot more people than just your immediate church membership know what’s goin’ on in your little kingdom!
. AnonInNC wrote:
They love the euphemisms, the phrases that make them look like they care, like they do good, as do all people who inwardly hate others but want just enough cover so that they can keep on hurting people.
“For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. “
Euphemisms, indeed. Actually, more spine-chilling than nice-sounding.
The phrase “pursuing her in love” reminded me of the situation in 2015 at The Village Church with the so-called disciplining of Karen Hinkley, where elders spoke specifically of “pushing her under our care.”
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/05/26/part-2-the-village-church-doesnt-discipline-the-internet-child-sex-abuser-but-disciplines-his-wife/
Daisy wrote:
As well as make church look completely unappealing, explaining the growing number of The Dones (believers who refuse to step foot in a church because of this level of authoritarian control over adults’ lives).
Daisy wrote:
At my ex-church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley one bizarre woman over the age of 50 (old enough to know better) picked fights with people in record-speed time when she learned they were divorced. She demanded that they call their ex-spouse their ‘current spouse’ and told them that ‘they weren’t really divorced in the eyes of God’. Yes, this boundaryless nutcase could ruin any social event by her selfishness. She was enabled by the pastors/elders, also boundaryless, tacky nutcases.
Law Prof wrote:
Ah yes, the infamous “push her under our care” from TVC. At the time some found the true meaning of their euphemism by removing a few letters, i.e. “push her under our car” or just “push her under”.
one of the little people wrote:
We have a winner!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy_nZY7FClc
Oh, my gosh. This is so sad and so telling.
@ Bill M:
“Why the 23rd? Do they need to know so they can include an excommunication into their Christmas eve service?”
++++++++++++
perhaps to wrap up ‘business’ by year’s end, before they take their holiday vacation days?
I just want to say something to people who may be tempted to shun someone over an issue of personal convictions like this, in case any are reading here. Please don’t do it. It is a cruel, vicious, heartless, reckless, self-important thing.
God is love. They will know we are Christians by our love. We love because he first loved us. Think of God’s lovingkindness and patience to you. Think of the parable of the unmerciful servant.
Before you allow a manipulative leader to use you as a tool for control, think about whether you want to look the Lord Jesus in the eyes and explain why you did this to your brother or sister in Christ.
Every time you shun someone else, you tighten the prison you, yourself, must live in. The only situation I can think of where shunning might be appropriate is against a dangerous predator who is victimizing the innocent.
@ Anne C:
“HBC is a very unchristian place.”
+++++++++
it depends on how you look at it, and how one defines “christian”.
christian church culture controls the word “christian” in meaning, theory, practice. HBC is what christian church culture in general has become, just taken to extremes. in that sense, it is quite compatible with what the word “christian” has evolved to mean and look like.
the way i see it, christian churches mistake “christian” for “churchian”. they are founded on ‘Churchianity’, not on Jesus Christ. churches run themselves based on what other churches are doing, have traditionally done, and what the christian powerbroker bigmouths are telling them to do. it’s an industry. in general, i now see churches as caricatures of themselves. my disappointment is huge.
but i think we agree — HBC looks nothing like Jesus Christ.
@ brad/futuristguy:
“The phrase “pursuing her in love” reminded me of the situation in 2015 at The Village Church with the so-called disciplining of Karen Hinkley, where elders spoke specifically of “pushing her under our care.””
+++++++++++++
“care, to care for”…. yeah, steve hardin & brad house of Mars Hill infamy ruined a perfectly good word for all their pastor peers. any pastor who uses that word again immediately sounds snake-like & reptilian. and his hearers will feel the need to take a shower and scrub it off.
FIR…
Oh, BAH !
People think it’s east being on UTC, but it’s not.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
No, they don’t; they think it’s easy…
not a good start, but the day is yet young.
siteseer wrote:
Thank you, well said.
I was excommunicated and ordered to be shunned from my former church, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley on some trumped up charge. Before the vicious pastors/elders
did it to me, they did it to a doctor in his 70’s (faithful and loving husband for nearly 50 years, faithful and loving father to grown children, gave of his time and money to the church, bought expensive DVDs and books with his own money to start the church lending library for members and attenders to use, and paid for an expensive vacation for the senior pastor. For all that he did, the pastors/elders treated him like garbage and it was despicable! Before the good doctor’s excommunication, the pastors/elders did it to a godly middle-aged woman who volunteers with the mentally ill in group homes and with the elderly in convalescent hospitals. Each time the vicious pastors/elders — liars one and all —- said they’d “worked with [name of church member] to no avail” and the person hadn’t changed (yes we are entitled to our own ideas, lives, choices and don’t have to bow and scrape to authoritarian pastors).”
God surely will not bless such evil works.
For my part, I am making the rounds of all of the city councils in the Silicon Valley cities where my ex-pastors/elders live and speaking out about them, the incredible danger they are to our community and to our citizens, including their defending their friend a Megan’s List sex offender/child pornographer as ‘safe’ because he said a few words about Jesus.
Sandra wrote:
These neo-Calvinists are totally wrong about the total “lack” of free will in men. For me it is not so hard to see that God is in total 100% control, but allows room in that full control for men to have free will to choose to love/not-love and to obey/disobey. Because without free will mankind will just be mindless robots, incapable of truly loving and truly obeying. The free will of men is God’ will, so God is still in total 100% control.
Instead these neo-Calvinists, in order to “glorify” God, say that mankind do not have free will at all. Ok so if someone is a robot that was “designed” by God to not accept God, and that robot cannot help but reject God, why then does this robot even deserve eternal hell fire? Why even bother punishing this robot? This robot cannot help but reject God. How is this even the robot fault? Why not just make this robot disappear and cease to exist, instead of punish it?
In trying to glorify God, these neo-Calvinists made “god” into a MONSTER who create MINDLESS robots just to PUNISH them ETERNALLY for NO reason.
Is this the all loving Jesus that we know? Nope! And anyone who knows Jesus also knows the Father.
elastigirl wrote:
The Calvinistas have carefully written most of Jesus out of their ‘gospel’. He is an atonement, but not equal with God, and His ministry is never talked about by them.
I came to the same conclusion last night. No Christ, not Christian. Not Christians, not a church. I will not be calling them Christians or churches any longer.
I would call HBC a cult.
I don’t always agree with CARM, but many fundamentalists do, and HBC lines up with most of these identifiers for a cult: https://carm.org/signs-practices-of-a-cult
Velour quoted siteseer thus:
I have to echo Velour on this. Siteseer’s statement deserves to be shouted from the rooftops to every believer in everything that calls itself “a” church.
To paraphrase a quote used in the movie Spotlight: If it takes a congregation to build up and support a believer, it also takes a congregation to abuse a believer.
I’m in the Uk and can’t get my head round not being allowed to leave a church. It’s a free country, these are intelligent (and hurting) adults, they aren’t indentured slaves or under repressive laws like Sharia which have to be obeyed on pain of death. I’m truly mystified – what can these oppressors do to Marie apart from shunning – and those who do that, IMO, aren’t worthy of the name christian and she’ll soon find much nicer genuine folk to befriend, religious and non religious. I wish her a much happier 2017 and a better life. She’s being extremely brave.
siteseer wrote:
I like the self important word…it jumped out to me and means having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one’s own importance; pompously conceited or haughty. having or showing an unduly high opinion of one’s own abilities, importance, etc
It is the opposite of humility or meekness. Of course because they say they r humble doesn’t make it so. By their fruit you will know them….and we sure can see the fruit in this situation.
Christmas Blessings to all u ww’ers!
I know all too well how HBC elders and Tim treat people! My husband and I left HBC, a church that we loved and served for many years because of Tim and the elders. Tim is not a shepherd, he is manipulating people, lying and extremely controlling! He only cares about himself not others.
I have seen Tim treat woman and men with such disrespect it is appalling that he is a pastor. HBC was a loving church, and there are good people there that love God and are being mislead. We tried to warn the leaders about Tim, but they took his side and we had no choice but to leave our church and a family we so dearly loved as we could no longer support this kind of leadership, which is not what HBC was founded on.
We hadn't sinned but just wanted to leave HBC. We were quoted the same things they told Marie… Hebrews 13, submit to your elders, keep the circle small and don't tell anyone why you left and we were sinning by leaving the church. It is so sad that this young man can come into a healthy church and destroy it because of his arrogance! Tim and the elders should be under church discipline.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Bravo, Nick.
old timer wrote:
Christmas blessings to you too!
Best regards,
Velour in California
At this stage of the game, is excommunication a bad thing? I know there is a principal involved but if it stops the harrassment.
The reality is this church won’t see reason. If Driscoll can still draw a crowd given his history, the true believers at HBC will be the same way.
No one acknowledges the authority of these clowns. Time to punch out.
@ siteseer:
Well said! I hope the members of Heritage Bible Chapel will do some serious soul-searching. They need to fear Almighty God, not their domineering pastors who have a Neo-Cal agenda.
“……. Tim responded by saying he “had to” continue. Why? Because I was a member of the “universal church” and therefore he was still obligated to proceed with the accountability measures.”
Does this crackpot believe he has the God-given authority to discipline anyone and everyone who doesn’t live by his rules?
@ Jack:
If I were in Marie’s shoes, I would view excommunication from Heritage Bible Chapel as a Badge of Honor.
I am grateful that she has found a wonderful Christian fellowship with loving, Godly pastors. God is good!
Hang in there Marie! We believe you will be vindicated.
@ Former HBC member:
Thanks for speaking out. I hope others who have left Heritage Bible Chapel will come forward on Marie’s behalf.
Given what we know about these domineering pastors and their church takeover movement, we are pretty sure the bodies under the HBC bus are piling up (to use a Mark Driscoll analogy).
Bill M wrote:
Yes indeed. And lol at the christmas eve excommunication! Can you imagine how that would go?
There is something seriously wrong with Tim.
AnonInNC wrote:
The Village Church people did some of the same. It’s like they’ve watching too many hallmark movies…
Daisy wrote:
Advice is not meant to be anything more than that…advice. You take advice, but the decision is yours. These guys don’t seem to get that, on a fundamental level.
@ Matilda:
Thank you for your kind words to Marie. She has found a wonderful church with caring pastors.
I join you in wishing her a Happy New Year. May 2017 be her best year ever!
@ Lea:
It’s a playbook! And we are here to expose it.
siteseer wrote:
It does make you think. They get very excited about trying to force people to do what they want, but actually supporting them when they need it? Genuinely loving them? Nope.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
These are sobering words! Silence (from HBC congregants) is definitely NOT golden.
Former HBC member wrote:
Church discipline as practiced seems to be used on everyone but the people who it actually should be used on!
elastigirl wrote:
Agree!
Deb wrote:
Good for you! I think when people are in these situations and it happens them, they just think ‘Tim/Elder Bob/Whoever’ is just a controlling person who has someone gotten a hold of this one church and hates them or their family or what have you.
When you start taking a global view you see the same things over and over, the same language, the same dumb anti-biblical choices, you can start to see the patterns and you know that it is NOT just one person who is not a good person. Then you have to go back to see what they are being taught, and how they are being supported. All of these controlling people are being taught to be this way and they have become so puffed up and arrogant as a group that they can not examine themselves and be introspective and learn from mistakes! Something has to change.
Nancy2 wrote:
They must teach them this in seminary.
@ ishy:
Thanks for your important comment! It immediately brought to mind a post that I put together six years ago based on points outlined in a book written Ronald Enroth called Churches That Abuse. That post was aptly named Nine Marks of an Abusive Church. Here are those nine marks I outlined which came straight out of Enroth's book:
NINE MARKS OF AN ABUSIVE CHURCH
(1) Control-oriented style of leadership
(2) Spiritual elitism
(3) Manipulation of members
(4) Perceived persecution
(5) Lifestyle rigidity
(6) Suppression of dissent
(7) Harsh discipline of members
(8) Denunciation of other churches
(9) Painful exit process
Dr. Enroth has made his book Churches That Abuse available for FREE online, and it can be accessed at the link below.
http://www.ccel.us/churches.toc.html
I highly encourage current and former members of Heritage Bible Chapel to start educating themselves about spiritual abuse.
Another excellent resource is The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, which was written way back in 1990 and is still available on Amazon due to high demand.
https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Power-Spiritual-Abuse-Manipulation/dp/0764201379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482412540&sr=8-1&keywords=the+subtle+power+of+spiritual+abuse
Toxic Faith is also a good resource, which we also spotlighted in a post – Ten Characteristics of a Toxic Faith Syste. Toxic Faith is also available at Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Faith-Stephen-Arterburn/dp/0877888256/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1482412540&sr=8-4&keywords=the+subtle+power+of+spiritual+abuse
These are unsolicited endorsements for which Dee and I get paid a big fat zero! We are sharing them with the TWW community because we know they help bring sanity to the madness that is overtaking so many conservative churches through hyper-authoritarian pastors.
She Uppity.
Pastor and Elders must Make an Example, or their own wives might get Uppity.
Make an Example of one and a hundred will fall right into line singing their praises.
Daisy wrote:
As another never-married person, yeah, Tim Cockrell and HBC are making marriage look real appetizing. NOT. I’d add that it appears Pastor Tim is absolutely determined to rack up the torts against Marie. Does anyone know if HBC has church insurance or someone with deep pockets?
Church Membership is not in the Bible! As a Christian your membership is with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit!!!
Nancy2 wrote:
Answer from the Prophet Robert Zimmerman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4EkQfXtheg
Daisy wrote:
The word is DIKTAT. FUEHRERBEFEHL.
one of the little people wrote:
My favorite cult! One of the better developments of my life (yeah, I’ve been following/protesting Scientology since 1994ish) is seeing how Scientology has become the go-to organization when people are reaching for an example of “it’s a church and it’s evil.”
Oh, and by the way, Pastor Tim and HBC, if you do put out an order to shun Marie, it will be just like Scientology and its disconnection orders. Leah Remini has four more weeks of “Scientology The Aftermath” on the A&E channel if you’d like to familiarize yourself and draw the appropriate conclusions.
Former HBC member wrote:
This! And there are no written covenants in the New Testament. The testimony of faith is “Jesus is risen from the dead and He is Lord!”
I could be totally wrong, but it looks like a hierarchy which functioned properly would be an advantage in some of these cases.
For example: In the current church/school problem which we have been involved in, the new pastor was doing egregious things but the church just said forgive, forgive, forgive. The parents raised a ruckus, started taking their kids out of the school, and finally the church turned the matter over to the higher-ups. The district sent in an investigative team which included one former FBI agent, then on advice of that team hired a secular forensic IT company to investigate from that aspect, did it all as quickly as possible, and yesterday we got the call ‘the pastor has resigned.’ When it works it can be a good thing.
Personally, I know that some of the Catholic bishops horrendously dropped the ball. No doubt about it. But lack of an organizational system with some power above the local pastor level does not seem to me to be the answer either. Not preaching a line here, just noticing how complicated this can be.
I don’t recall reading about “shunning” in the Bible, or being excommunicated. The Amish do this. The Mormons do a form of it. Scientology definitely does it. Now HBC and other so called christian churches do it. As someone said above, this sounds like a cult. We are all adults here. We can chose to stop membership in any church we want. They do not control us. These so called Men of Gawd, are getting their jollies over controlling people. That is scary. If we are allowed to have our own minds, then we see things about the church that we shouldn’t see. We tell other people, etc. etc. Eventually their big kingdom they have built in their churches fall down. It’s all about the power and mind control. I watched the programs on tv this week that Leah Remini did about leaving Scientology. That was mind blowing. I had no idea this kind of thing went on. But then most of us don’t know about these “cults” unless we have to.
May each and everyone here have a very Blessed Christmas and a great New Year.
This is a pertinent post:
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/mark-gallis-at-christianity-today-on-church-discipline-my-question-when-is-c-j-mahaney-mark-driscoll-or-steve-estes-facing-church-discipline/#more-8768
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
They don’t have any affect on my views on marriage because I think they are totally and completely wrong. But if I believed them that I would be stuck in an abusive marriage for the rest of my life, it might.
@ Ken F:
I saw Mark Galli's article The Grace of Church Discipline in my latest CT issue and was greatly disappointed.
I have been receiving Christianity Today for decades. Not sure I will be renewing my subscription.
Harley wrote:
I think they may be using this, but look how variously it is translated and how much wiggle room there is in various translations. Bullies could really take advantage of this to mistreat people.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%205%3A11
okrapod wrote:
Lack of an organizational system doesn’t fix it, but sometimes an organization doesn’t fix it either. It’s not just the catholic church, PCA has had some issues with sending things the higher ups and getting no help, iirc.
The problem, to me, is that the organization as a whole has an overarching mentality, belief system, etc. I think this gets into Dee’s mention of systems. If the seminaries are teaching this nonsense, the higher-ups probably believe it too. So you will get no help there, unless you make things PAINFUL for them – which mostly means exposing them to the wider world, who are outside of the culture and see the problems. This is what happened with the Catholic church, the Village Church, etc. so it seems to be less about organizations to me. The bad PR worked the same for both independent and denominational structures.
@ Lea:
The thing is, “pastor” Tim doesn’t give advice. He gives commands. Power of the keys, and all that.
Jack wrote:
This comment is thought provoking. Looking back at the process of my excommunication from Grace Fellowship Church, I recognize what a blessing it was to be free from that church. I also am thankful for the lessons I have learned and the ministry God has permitted me to be part of as a result of my experiences. But this is looking back over twelve years. At the beginning of the process I was devastated.
So, I would say that is important not to minimize the pain that victims have gone through, and tell them that they should just leave and move on. And exposing the abusers has become an important part of my Christian walk and giftedness. I have been watching Leah Remini’s shows on Scientology and it just confirms my desire to expose spiritual abuse in whatever form it takes.
So yes, excommunication is a very bad thing. Very bad indeed. And those who spiritually abuse are to be marked out and avoided. Rom. 16:17. Get out and shout out.
The question at the start of the OP was: Why Won’t Heritage Bible Chapel LET MARIE GO Peaceably?
I have a couple of thoughts:
1. Tim, Kevin and the elders do not believe they are doing anything wrong – why should they let her go? Not only do they think they not doing wrong, they think that they are doing what is right. They have bought into the teaching that states pastors/elders have authority over their church members (ed.) believers in all aspects of their lives for spiritual development, and as such, they have a God-given commission to ‘shepherd’ an erring member of the flock.
2. They view opposition as confirmation they are on the right track. The pushback they are receiving via this site and others only feeds into their narrative that they are doing what is right; after all, the enemy is seeking to undo the mighty work God is doing through these men, and for that reason they anticipate opposition and rejoice when they receive it.
3. Backing down would be compromising on their God-given call and role as shepherds. If they ‘allowed’ Marie to leave, then they would be disobeying God’s commands and handing victory of the situation over to Satan. They last thing they want is to disobey God in this area, therefore they will maintain their stances until Jesus returns.
Burwell wrote:
should read, “over their church members”
@ Burwell:
I agree with this analysis…..
okrapod wrote:
It didn’t help that child abuse by Catholic priests was held under the “pontifical secret” (confidentiality). This came from the very top and is an example of how hierarchy can be short-circuited. I am going to speculate that we have a similar type of thing going on with certain organizations within the Neo-Calvinist orbit, where it’s perfectly OK to cover up child abuse if you’re a bigwig. Unlike the pontifical secret, I doubt the Neo-Cal orgs have written anything down.
Former HBC member wrote:
“I could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh” (1 Cor 3:1).
From the post (and quoting Marie specifically):
This angers me more than a lot of things that might seem more important. At what point in this whole sorry history – which, as Marie has shown us, involves numerous others beside herself – has this “pastor” shown himself to be accountable to the “universal church”? What exactly does he care about it?
If indeed he is, or has ever been, keen to honour and uphold the “universal church”, then he should be glad that the process of accountability has moved wider than his own sub-group.
Dale wrote:
Indian Trail, NC. There are numerous GFC’s. Some may not be toxic.
@ Matilda:
Technically they do leave the church. The problem is the church wont leave them alone. It is much like a stalking but with reputation assassination from someone with a spiritual title. Serious stuff with long term ramifications in business, etc. People need to take it seriously.
Church membership is voluntary but these little boy tyrants have a Reformation type church state mentality taught to them that makes them believe their conferred Spiritual title gives them higher authority power.
I am convinced that lawyers need to consider this as a potential client base. Not only can they help with legal membership resignation but also warn of the legal ramifications of discussing a former member with the congregation. Imagine pew sitters questioned about a member meeting they attended and what was said about the member that resigned. A few lawsuits, fines, etc might go a long way to putting an end to this. Lawyers could market it as the sanctuary abuse package.
They key to all this is the pastor tyrants want to control the message and the communication. Once they lose control of that, it’s not worth the outcome.
@ okrapod:
I agree that there needs to be accountability, but it does not need to be a heirarchy. It can easily be all the other members of the body in that local. Part of the problem for me is the fact that one man, or a few men, are given all the responsibility instead of responsibilities being spread throughout the body. I don’t want a captain, who can turn the ship sideways in high seas all by himself, to run the body of believers.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Just a tiny correction, I think this is the anonymous lady, not Marie.
For the rest, yes.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This is a good question, because he certainly doesn’t care about Marie or the anonymous lady.
Deb wrote:
There does indeed appear to be a playbook. The reason that Pastor X “needs” to follow through on the “discipline” process is because his in-group is watching him. If he breaks rank with his self-selected group, then *he* will be shunned by said group.
This particular group forms its identity around certain untouchable doctrines and certain idolized men. Other groups are identified by other untouchable doctrines. One’s identity is very, very powerful, and threats to that identity evoke a strong defensive reaction toward the perceived threats. Those of us who find our identities in Christ do feel liberated when we are cast out. Abusive situations *always* look different once we are out of the fog, but that takes some time. If they want to call me an unbeliever, then I must agree because I do not believe in many of the tings twhat they fervently believe in.
elastigirl wrote:
In the sense that ‘Jesus Christ’ is pointed to by the Holy Spirit, we find in those who genuinely follow Christ what is known as ‘the fruit of the Spirit’:
“the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith” (from Gal 5:22)
There is reason that these are the fruits of following Christ Who gave us into the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
There is a reason why HBC is not able to show these fruits in their treatment of people.
It is not so difficult to ‘figure out’ the tactics of a group that is relying on intimidation, bullying, threatening, shaming, and harassment in order to achieve their ends.
They follow the wrong ‘lord’:
they can stir up storm and thunder, but they have no connection to the power that calms the waters.
@ Gram3: BINGO!
“Why Won’t Heritage Bible Chapel LET MARIE GO Peaceably?”
Calvin taught that church discipline is a way to unite church members in the truth of the Word. Thus, if HBC leaders seriously believe that Calvin’s version of the Word is truth, then they have no option but to move forward in church discipline so that the church will be in unity! They cannot let Marie go peaceably … they must have the final word … they must divide by excommunication in order for the church to live in one without the offending member. If this sounds like archaic 16th century stuff, it’s because it is. There can only be peace in Geneva through the firm hand of Calvin. The spirit of Calvin lives! The Holy Spirit grieves.
@ okrapod:
I agree with this except when it comes to the Body of Christ. The Body should remove the person who is abusing. Most of the letters were written to the Body to deal with issues and from what we know were read aloud and passed around to various groups. IOW, they were not, in most cases, written to specific titles to deal with problems as the authority or responsible party. Even the ones written to individuals were shared.
The point seems to be all maturing in wisdom and functioning in the Body as equal members and dealing with issues. The eye cannot say to the hand….And such.
Gram3 wrote:
Absolutely.
This speaking of a church member reminds me of a out of control pillow fight.The "pastors" hit softly at first then it becomes more brutal, eventually all the feathers spill out all over the place and no one can get them back in. Bringing this lady in front of church discipline allows them to control her reputation and because they slant the narrative (and the pew sitters don't dare confront them) they can say what they want and no one can put all those feathers back in the pillow they belong in.Lord have mercy on the "church". As for me I will never join one again.
@ Bridget:
I think that is an excellent idea, but I note that it is not happening like that. I have not personally had all that much experience with actual pastors, either good or bad, because I have made it my life’s work to maintain a ‘professional’ distance, that being their profession not mine. But I have an awful lot of prior experience with people, and I don’t all that much believe in the pew persons any more. Any idea that the pulpit is corrupt but the congregation is pristine does not play with what I have observed. There are a gracious plenty persons on the pews who agree with this pastor, who are all too ready to throw people under the bus, who cough up cash to keep this guy and those like him in business. There is an epidemic of vicious cardiac disease which is a late complication of having a heart two sizes too small. Which observation is sound and biblical in my opinion. There is, I think, enough nastiness to go around.
Bridget wrote:
Astute comment, Bridget. Could the one-pastor model of church be errant? http://www.searchingtogether.org/how-to-choose-a-good-pastor/
Lydia wrote:
The person who mistreats others has ALREADY walked away from the Body of Christ.
We turn towards Christ. And we can turn away from Christ. We have that choice.
To return to the Lord is a choice.
That wasn’t me. That was the other woman’s testimony.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Bridget wrote:
You know, one thing we have to take into consideration is when the quest is to find the right church with good leaders– that could be a life long endeavor. The search for some to teach and lead you as an adult? And how would you know for sure unless something happened to make you see behind the curtain and their true character in patterns of action? And worse, such power/position changes many people. Not to mention the problems associated with a career in these sorts of churchy insulated bubbles.
I think elastigirl hit the nail on the head. It’s all about churchianity. Not Jesus Christ.
Many so called spiritual leaders seem to ignore the fact that the Apostles suffered and most came to a gruesome end from what we know. Paul was not building a villa in Corinth. The educated Paul was making tents and collecting funds for the persecuted in Jerusalem.
@ Burwell:
Exactly! What is worse is that this website is run by two females who are, by definition, easily deceived and prone to deceiving others. That is one of their non-negotiable dogmas.
Christiane wrote:
Are you making a distinction between the Body of Christ and church that claims to be such? Not sure I get your point.
Lydia wrote:
“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.” – Ernest Hemingway
siteseer wrote:
Shunning is pretty big in Scientology, for anyone who’s been watching Leah Remini’s series about Scientology on A&E network.
Though I think Scientologists refer to shunning as “disconnecting.”
If your church is giving off vibes of being cult-like, just like Scientology, you may be doing “church discipline” or the faith itself incorrectly, hint hint.
Lydia wrote:
That will preach … but you won’t hear American mega-church pastors living in mansions preach it!
Lea wrote:
Don’t forget the first half of my post.
I cannot get over the fact how Church X here thinks these women should listen to THEIR interpretation of the Bible regarding divorce, when Churches Y, Q, and H all have the direct opposite interpretation on the same exact issue.
Christians are not in consensus on what the Bible says about divorce… which says to me, if you’re an adult, you just need to go with what you feel is best for you.
(Rather than assume that Pastor John Doe can tell you how to live your life.)
Pastor Doe’s interpretation is no better, or not necessarily more correct, than Pastor Smith’s, Pastor Brown’s, or Pastor Whomever’s.
It’s funny and arrogant to me that Pastor Tim of HBC thinks only his interpretation counts.
Gram3 wrote:
G3, I’ll do you one better: by agreeing to the comment rules and supporting the mission of TWW, I believe that means I, as a man, am submitting (*gasp) myself to their authority.
OH THE HUMANITY!
My father used to tell me repeatedly, usually in reference to some legal work he had just done for somebody or other, that the people who can hurt you the most are those who are closest to you, including but not limited to immediate family.
Unfortunately I forgot to heed that, but lo he was correct. What I am saying is that ‘church’ does not have to be that close to us, and certainly the pastor does not have to be that close to us. People do not owe transparency to the predators among us. Don’t play with the pretty little snakes with the lovely copper-orange decorations.
Lydia wrote:
True. The question then is to define “abuse” in the context of Scripture … and not limit “the person who is abusing” to only the pew … TWW continues to chronicle those in the pulpit who abuse. In elder-rule churches, it is tough to discipline abusive pastors, because the congregation has no voice and the elders in most cases are pastor yes-men. Thus, the only option a church member has who finds himself in an authoritarian patriarchy which dishes out abuse via aberrant theology, is to get the heck out of the place. With no accountability system in place for such churches, how can the greater Body of Christ concerned about it discipline its leaders? This blog is a form of discipline, I suppose, but are they listening?
Lea wrote:
Not just abusive, authoritarian churches. After my mother died, I sure as heck didn’t get the support or encouragement I was seeking when I went to other Christians for help. I instead got earfuls of platitudes, unhelpful advice, and heaps of shame.
I related to what the OP said, about how after her infants died, she got basically no support from Christians she knew.
I think even Christians in non-abusive churches face this. Christians as a rule are pretty loathe to actually DO things for, or be a comfort for, someone who is walking through a painful valley, especially if it’s grief. They don’t like dealing with someone who’s experienced a death in the family.
Max wrote:
……. Including Ronnie Floyd, Steve Gaines, and a long laundry list of other SBC pastors. But they will certainly preach about “Godly women” being nothing more than the lowly helpmaids, uh, helpmeets.
Daisy wrote:
Which is why I like filking that dialogue from Babylon-5 in such situations:
“You have a saying: (insert platitude or SCRIPTURE proof text here).
We also have a saying: PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!”
Nancy2 wrote:
With Benefits (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)
Daisy wrote:
Because it’s the TRUE interpretation of the One True Church and all the others are FALSE interpretations of FALSE Churches of Heretics and Apostates. (Insert appropriate clobber verses here.)
Daisy wrote:
When a church’s behavior is easily described as “Just Like Scientology!”, that’s NOT a good sign.
okrapod wrote:
Totally agree with this! It might be the only way to do “church” these days. I would just hate to be a part of something like church which is spiritually voluntary yet is doing harm to others– but had no idea because I did not bother to question anything or be involved. Perhaps I have lingering guilt on this score? I feel a responsibility for the time I did not question the red flags.
Gram3 wrote:
Feral junkyard dogs turning on any sign of weakness in their Alpha — “He’s WEAK! KILL AND EAT!”
Anyone remember the ending of the original Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man”?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Precisely.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
The difference between German bureaucratic tradition (CYA by documenting EVERYTHING) and Russian (Plausible Deniability, if nothing’s written down It Never Existed and You Can’t Ever Prove It Did!)
Lydia wrote:
@ Christiane:
this comment may help clarify any confusion as to what I was referring to
Dale wrote:
Leah Remini has been Dead Agented by Scientology as “Bitter(TM)” in all Sciento-controlled media and PR spin.
@ Christiane:
It seems vague since you said the ‘abuser left the Body of Christ’. Did you mean the abuser left the group/church/location? Does it mean they physically stay but spiritually left?
Lea wrote:
Deb, Dee, one of both of you are Trekkies.
Remember the title of one TOS episode — “Patterns of Force”?
Lea wrote:
This is the behavior of a He Who Can Do No Wrong.
Velour wrote:
These days my tag line is “HO! HO! HO! MERRY BURNOUT!”
(My Dilbert-zone job tends to get the craziest around the end of the year.)
Daisy wrote:
The only support she got was the from the person who actually knew her, cared about her, and was her friend. A person who cared about her on a personal level, not just because they went to church together. I think there are a lot of things church can do if run well, and full of people who care (pastor visits and prayer and those casseroles siteseer doesn’t like 🙂 , but it can only facilitate two people meeting and connecting on a personal level – it cannot force it.
Former HBC member wrote:
Or, for an old-fart Jewish mystic as myself, Kether, Chochmah and Binah, with a longing to see the Shekhinah…
*smiling*
Christiane wrote:
I totally agree. It is amazing how many permutations of the idea of ‘no choice’ actually show up in some strains of religious thought. Amazing and disheartening. Stuff is taught like, you have no choice but to believe ‘my’ understanding of scripture because I am right, I am the pastor, my grand-daddy used to say, I read actually in print in a book written by some magnificent person, we have always thought that way, on and on and on. And if you do not realize that you have no option to think, study, explore, analyze for yourself, then God will convince you of that by casting you into the ultimate fire. And by the way, stop this chatter about the Holy Spirit, we are not pentecostals. And stop this chatter about what the larger body believes, we are not Catholics. Your only ‘choice’ is yes sir, no sir and how high sir, because the bible says so, and the way that you know that the bible says so is because I just told you so. So quit with the rebellion and sit down and hush.
And by the way, you can’t walk away from Christ because if you are elect/truly saved He will not let you do that. (selectively chosen chapter and verse) And even if He did let you walk away then He sure would not take you back ever, ever,ever. (selectively chosen chapter and verse)..This is the last time I am going to tell you to sit down and hush.
This happens.
Lydia wrote:
The crux of it is the people who can really hurt you, as okrapod said, are the ones you let in. Connection makes you vulnerable, but it also is important. Choosing who to connect with is a dicey proposition. I don’t think there is anything wrong with either approach to church, getting really involved and close to everyone (except that if that is where your entire social network is that makes you more vulnerable, maybe we should be thinking of it like picking stock, diversification is less risky?), or staying disconnected.
In theory, staying disconnected should make it easier to stand up when you do catch those red flags, but they are always easier to see in hindsight. I look back and one situation and I see it all now, but I didn’t then, or what I saw I misinterpreted. But you can’t fix the past, you can only hope to learn from it.
Sorry for the ramble.
And seeking the inspiration of the Ruach ha-Kodesh, while expecting the Moshiach. I am not a Messianic Jew, nor a Christian, but there are intersecting lines between us, my friends, for anyone that looks… *again, gentle smile*
Sandra wrote:
I’m sure of it.
Many years ago, a writer contact of mine moved from Seattle to Louisville and tried to select a church for him and his family. He specifically mentioned to me one that was heavily into Predestination, describing a lot of characteristics we normally associate with Islam:
* Passivity and Fatalism among the rank and file — “Whatever Will Be, Will Be (sigh)”.
* Ego-tripping and control-freaking among the rich and powerful (and ambitious) in the congregation — “I WANNA! SO GOD HATH PREDESTINED ME! IN’SHAL’LAH!” (with no upper limit).
* Stupidity in actions — “OF COURSE I’LL GET WHAT I WANNA! IT’S GOD’S WILL! IN’SHAL’LAH!” (again, with no upper limit).
* And Cosmic-level blame-shifting excuse machine when exposed — “NOT MY FAULT! GOD’S WILL! IN’SHAL’LAH!”
Predestination was a core axiom of both Calvin’s and Mohammed’s theologies; you’d expect the systems they started (and left to others More Calvinist/Islamic than themselves) to show all the side effects of Predestination/Determinism.
Velour wrote:
“He shall rule above the law,
Calling on the LORD…”
— Rudyard Kipling, “The Old Issue”
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/kipling/old_issue/
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I’ll offer that there are Arabic Orthodox Christians (Antiochian and Syrian, among others), for whom, in their Bibles, the name of G_d is “Allah,” and who do use that phrase… but they’re not fatalistic, just hopeful that their desires line up with ha-Shem’s. (rather like Pres. Lincoln’s attributed comment that, in effect, rather than “God is on our side,” it mattered more that we were on G_d’s side.
Bridget wrote:
Sorry to be a broken record, (as I already pretty much said this a post or two above), but HBC (and churches similar to it) looks to me like Scientology.
Lea wrote:
Excellent point!
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
I come from a very traditional family. My parents strongly frown on shacking up, but from what I’m seeing these churches put abused women through, shacking up looks safer and more beneficial in some ways as opposed to marriage.
Out of the other sides of their mouths, a lot of these churches (who notice falling marriage rates – many remain oblivious), they scream, cry, and clutch their pearls in concern that more of us singles are not marrying.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You just gotta love these arrogant, authoritarian preacher men who lay out rules they expect women to follow, but you know darn well they would exempt themselves (and probably their own daughters) from.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
I was just saying the same thing, before I saw your post!
You can watch episodes of this show for free online (at least I’m fairly sure it’s free):
http://www.aetv.com/shows/leah-remini-scientology-and-the-aftermath
Paul Julian Gould wrote:
I believe that. Some of our better thinkers believe that. I hope you hang around and join the conversation. Jesus (whatever anybody thinks about him) was not a Christian either; sometimes we goyim forget that.
siteseer wrote:
Great comment.
Lea wrote:
When I was younger and thought gender complementarianism was true, I would’ve most likely bought into HBC’s thinking on marriage, abuse, and divorce.
Now that I’m older, know better, and have life experience, I know they’re wrong. I am concerned about women who are either young and naive, or even older ones who don’t yet see the problems with complementarianism views on marriage or these other views that tell women they must remain married to an abuser.
Lea wrote:
The Body of Christ is connected to the ‘Vine’, and therefore relate to one another through Christ.
A lot of the ‘churches’ being described to me sound more like some sort of business corporation or social club, where ‘members’ or ‘leadership’ have a lot to say about what happens to one another …. no talk of individual conscience or the dignity and value of even a single human person, no.
In such ‘churches’, the private dignity of the human person may not receive the recognition that it would be given in a Church where the members were joined to the Vine (Our Lord) and found their unity in Him.
Huge difference.
elastigirl wrote:
My sentiments also.
Good thing the Deebs are dependable and do not delete comments, I am able to read them later. Sometimes really good stuff is posted at 3AM.
okrapod wrote:
I always thought that would be a protection and the case you cited demonstrates that it works sometimes. In my case it worked the opposite. The rank and file deferred to the district and the district simply fell in behind the 30 something pastor with absolutely no investigation or oversight. If we were on our own there would have been a better chance to fix things.
Burwell wrote:
Man, talk about setting yourself up for a rude awakening.
Daisy wrote:
Oh, they don’t exempt their daughters. They have just as low of view of daughters as they do their wives.
Their sons, now–they are predestined to be elders and leaders.
Remember all the reality TV scandals of the patriarchy families trying to hide the abuse of their daughters by their sons?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
He seems to think the universal church agrees with his particular interpretation of when or how a woman may divorce. But there are other equally conservative Christians out there who take the Bible as seriously as he does who totally disagrees with his interpretation.
Unless this Rev Tim wants to say that his views on divorce are a first-tier issue, and if you disagree with him on it, you are not “saved.”
@ Bill M:
“He drew a circle that shut me out-
Heretic , rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him In !
From the poem ” Outwitted” (Edwin Markham)
Bill M wrote:
That is a prayer hour for many Christians. 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
They don’t think that the atonement of Christ had or has any impact on women but it did on men.
Marie Notcheva wrote:
Yes, I realise that now! Many apologies, Marie.
My heart aches for those at HBC and for the witness of Christ. It’s less about how many points of Calvinism are there, than it is about WHO is teaching it and HOW they are applying it. With this going public the whole body of Christ suffers, not just one church or group. May the sheep be protected. So sad.
Bridget wrote:
A good argument to be made against any system and they all have the potential to break down. The hierarchy sides with the pastor. If accountability is the locale, I expect the pastors will support each other and further the abuse. If the accountability is the members, some of them can be subverted and be turned into enforcers.
One system that would greatly help is to do a complete psychological exam on seminary candidates to screen out the NPDs and other psychopaths. But then they would see their students drop by half. (NOT an exaggeration)
Daisy wrote:
I have never believed in compleMENtariansism. I am far and away the oldest grandchild on both sides of the family. I was raised in an environment almost opposite of yours. I tended to livestock (alone before I was 12: horses, mules, chickens, and 40 to 70 hogs), fixed fences, worked in tobacco, tow started old tractors. ………. My family expected more and better work from me than they did the male hired help. Before I was 16, I was left in the tobacco fields to supervise and work with hired adult men. If the boys picked on men, either verbally or physically, I was expected to defend myself – and I did. Daddy and the uncles and the Papaws didn’t keep me in a protective bubble. I majored in and taught mathematics – a very male dominated field when I went to college. Yet, ability, grades, performance, pay, and position are not decided by gender. Yes, there is some authority, mentoring, and oversight; but that is based on seniority, degree levels, ability, and commitment – not gender.
I can’t find words to express how much it burns me up that husbands and these so-called men of God think it’s God’s will that Marie and, women like her, should be treated the way they treat them. If they think pain makes wives more holy, they need to feel some pain themselves! If God was really working in their lives, they would be absolutely ashamed of themselves!! GRRRRRRR!
@ ishy:
I’m just reading quickly here, haven’t had time to keep up with much of anything lately. But, no, their daughters are not exempted from divorce it seems. James White’s daughter Summer was allowed a “Biblical Divorce” this summer I believe based on her husband’s refusal to “repent” and change. Some of the Calvinista women blogger’s were comparing contrasting the “Biblical” divorce of White’s daughter to one of Beth Moore’s daughter’s “unBiblical” divorce.
Nancy2 wrote:
Typo, should say if the boys picked on me, not men.
Daisy wrote:
I met my now-wife at church (a flagship neo-cal in the Dallas area) but for the good of my marriage we got ourselves out of there. The constant attempts at manipulation just became to obvious. Our relationship has always been very strong and yet leadership and people around us would try to project issues on us because they couldn’t imagine that our relationship wasn’t as rocky as others. Also the continuous push for children and family when that is not our drive. It’s amazing how relieving and empowering it is to just be able to live your life without them pressure and manipulation that comes from being in church.
Christiane wrote:
That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t say who shows up at your bedside at 3am when you need them.
okrapod wrote:
I used to be an open book. I still am more or less, at least on sites such as this one, where I’m using a screen name and not my real one.
I learned the hard way after my mother passed to be more careful when or to whom I share my personal stuff, even to Christians.
I was burned more often than not by people who I thought would and should be safe for me to go to and confide in.
I’ve seen different Christian guests on Christian talk shows for years now encourage people to stop “wearing a mask” when they go to church and to be “more transparent.”
Now when I hear that, I think, hey, I’d like to, but every time I’ve tried, when I’ve been vulnerable, I’ve been met with put-downs, scolding, criticism, judgment, and shaming by other Christians.
I now more of less keep my mouth shut when I meet other Christians in real life.
Also considering how controlling and abusive some church people are when they get up in your business, I’d say being more circumspect or reserved may be a wise route to go.
ishy wrote:
Speaking of …….
http://www.inquisitr.com/3803464/toby-willis-update-attorney-says-toby-may-not-be-competent-to-stand-trial-hearing-reset-fourth-time/
@ okrapod:
The real irony of all of these “factions” within protestant Christianity is that many of them think they are the “one true way”… and many of these “one true way” disagree with each other one what constitutes the “one true way”
I was partially raised, and attended a high school, run by churches in the General Association of Regular Baptist, GARBC. A central tenet of GARBC is “second degree separation”.. not only do they not associated officially with unbelievers, but they do not associate with believers that associate with unbelievers. Translated: they would not associate with Billy Graham crusades (for example) since Billy Graham associates with Catholics! Pretty sure GARBC would not like some aspects of Neo-Cal doctrine as well!
It would be kind of fun to watch GARBC pope and this Tim guy and TBC go at each other!!
On the first day of Christmas the elders lectured me
on the imperatives of Patrimony. 🙁
Lea wrote:
He has called us to oneness, not sameness.
Dale wrote:
Very different from the HBC admonition to departing members to “keep the circle small”.
“Get out and shout out” — it’s catchy. Hope more people catch on.
We left our controlling church pretty quietly, relieved to get away except for one stalking incident that traumatized the teens. So quietly, in fact, that a couple who remained friends with us said that someone asked about us, months after we’d left, having noticed that we’d missed church a few times…
I still get jumped on my Facebook by people in that church, whenever the topic of spiritual abuse comes up. They say I’m slandering the old church, for some reason.
@ Burwell:
Amen. I think you’ve pretty well nailed it.
I used to say that the elders in our old church were not acting out of malice. However, whether they’re acting the way they are because of fear of the greater judgment for elders (I don’t have the exact verse handy), or maliciously controlling and enjoying watching parishioners squirm, the results are the same.
Accipiter wrote:
Of course, that is not the genuine church; it is a counterfeit of the real thing. In the true church living according to the Kingdom of God, you will find peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Granted, such gatherings are rare and endangered species, but they are out there. In my 60+ years as a Christian, I’ve been privileged to be a part of some of these assemblies of God’s people, but they are getting harder to find with all the stuff that is coming into the organized religion, such as New Calvinism.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Someone may already have addressed this, but wasn’t this the woman who left HBC in 2014? I don’t get the feeling that Marie’s abusive husband ever went to bat for her.
Accipiter wrote:
It took me 30 years to realize that. At first I only left very reluctantly and with a sense of guilt, but I just couldn’t keep going anymore. I felt I was only leaving temporarily in order to heal and get my bearings again, and then I would find another church. A healthy one this time. lol. After a long time out of church, I did look, I visited very many churches, but that is when I began to realize I could recognize BS from a mile away and I was not willing to put myself into that situation again. The longer I’ve been out, the better I’ve done.
Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:
Do they not associate with Jesus, who had the exceptionally “bad” habit of associating with tax collectors, prostitutes and other notorious sinners? /sarcasm
@ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:
I jsut checked..
GARBC severed ties with Cederville University because Cederville University associates itself with the Southern Baptist Convention!!
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/16.24.html
So, since Tim of HBC was trained by a Southern Baptist Seminary, and Maria is getting excommunicated by Tim, would she be welcomed by GARBC? Enemy of Enemy is my friend?
While want I just wrote seems silly, this business of each Church/group, thinks they speak for the Church Universal.. is just as silly.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I’m sorry to every one here for harping on my mother’s passing as I sometimes do, but it hit me pretty big, and I was appalled (and am still surprised years later) at the reactions of so-called Christians I knew in real life.
I actually had one family member classify my mourning over the loss as being “self pity.” I bit my tongue, but that really bothered me.
Nobody helped me get through the grief, including “Mr. Self Pity” guy. If you didn’t help me through the grief, don’t judge me for how I dealt with it (which was all alone).
I can just imagine what the lady in the OP went through when she lost her babies.
I can totally picture church members either totally ignoring her and her husband at that time, or only offering platitudes.
Maybe more preachers need to offer “Tips On How To Minister To Those in Grief” in some sermons, rather than the usual, “15 Steps to a Sizzling Married Sex Life,” sermons, like they usually do. I think more people would find a sermon on grief more helpful.
Christiane wrote:
One problem I see, Christine, is that they use the same words, but the words have different meanings, sort of like the Doctrines of Grace do not resemble actual grace.
You see that in a lot of cults, actually. You may talk to cult members and think you are talking about the same thing, but their “love” and “joy” and “kindness” and “faith” etc. actually have different definitions from yours.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That sounds pretty accurate.
Pastor Tim probably also thinks the true, biblical teachings about divorce have been corrupted over centuries past, and his church has rediscovered what God REALLY meant.
A lot of these cultic type groups think they are “recovering” true Christianity from years of corruption. Every one else has it all wrong.
Lea wrote:
That also seems to me to be the worst way.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Have you ever noticed how often some Christians like to brag and go on about how different Christianity is from all other religions…
Yet, depending on which denomination or type of doctrine we’re talking about, Christians are almost exactly like other religions?
Some of these authoritarian churches sound like Scientology, while, IMO, the churches that are into complementarianism remind me of either Islam’s Sharia, or Mormonism, or Hinduism caste beliefs.
If you claim the name of Christ but your doctrines or behavior is more like Scientology or Islam or whatever, you may want to rethink things.
Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:
My daughter knew somebody who was GARB when she was at Liberty, and some IFB and lots of things. At least one IFB family thought that Liberty was too liberal and sent the kid there only because of free tuition for preacher’s kids, and then they were not reconciled to the idea. I don’t know about the GARB kid. Anyhow, that was even before Jerry went Southern Baptist. Some folks are like that.
Truth be told, I don’t really mind if some folks do put some distance between themselves and me. It rather keeps things from getting ugly. Okay, it keeps me from getting ugly. I am practicing being more abruptly honest about my shortcomings.
drstevej wrote:
on the second day of Christmas the elders lectured me on the Book of Church Order and the imperatives of Patrimony. (or would it be patriarchy?)
I hope that Paul Julian Gould fellow comments some more. We don’t need to get too inbred around here. I listen to Amy-Jill Levine a lot, but I have just about heard all there is to hear on youtube from her. I have not actually listened to anybody who was Jewish talk about religion/life or whatever since I was in med school. Father S and a local rabbi do that a priest and a rabbi went into a bar conversation thing, but it is at night and downtown and I don’t go.
Oh, well. Wait and see.
It also seems like many of these groups that have “covenant” contracts use discipline as a tool to manipulate and control, not as a “last resort” restorative/protective measure. For example, they do not discipline the husband who often appears/ is the aggressor in the relationship. It also seems to me that those being excommunicated/disciplined are women far more then men.
“What are they teaching in seminary these days?”
That’s one question I also want the ask. Are neo-Calvinists infiltrating theological seminaries? If so which ones?
An article:
http://religionnews.com/2014/05/20/troubling-trends-americas-calvinist-revival/
They’ve created vibrant training grounds for raising new recruits (see Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).
…..
As Scot McKnight, professor at Northern Seminary told me, “Calvinists can give really strong impressions that those who disagree with them are both unfaithful and that they theologically and intellectually lack courage. And that trend is relatively new.”
Another article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us/a-calvinist-revival-for-evangelicals.html?_r=0
“One of the concerns is that new graduates from certain Baptist seminaries have been infiltrating churches that are not Calvinist, and not telling the churches or search committees who are not Calvinist,” Professor Olson said. According to what he has heard, young preachers “wait several months and then begin to stock the church library with books” by Calvinists like John Piper and Mark Driscoll. They hold special classes on Calvinist topics, he said, and they staff the church with fellow Calvinists.
“Often the church ends up splitting, with the non-Calvinists starting their own church,” Professor Olson said.
refugee wrote:
ESS would be appropriate for the 3rd day…
Daisy wrote:
Yeah, I’m not sure that predestination is the root cause here. I’d wager it’s more like they are making an example of her to discourage other fence-sitters from making the decision to bail out. “Don’t think about leaving our group – we won’t let you anyways.”
Dale wrote:
Thanks for the link – good stuff.
.
Jon Zen writes…
“A Deep-Seated Assumption: You Need A Pastor
.
A **fatal assumption** has existed
for hundreds and hundreds of years in Christianity.
It is this: every group of believers **needs a human pastor.**
.
I say human pastor because in Hebrews
Jesus is called our “mega-pastor,”
the Great Shepherd of **His sheep.**
So believers indeed have a “pastor,” and He is Jesus Christ.
.
But when you think about it
there is absolutely **nothing in the New Testament**
about “the pastor” being the linchpin
of all that goes on in a local gathering of believers…
.
Of course, the idea of choosing a pastor
assumes that such a position should exist,
and that believers should occasionally
have to concern themselves with such a choice.
Neither of these assumptions
can be discovered in the New Testament.
.
Thus, the author is building part of an infrastructure
about “the pastor”
on **a non-existent foundation**…”
brian wrote:
I keep wondering if anybody has good records/stats on this. I kind of doubt the churches are keeping them, and if they aren’t they certainly aren’t published. But I think it would be good to do a thorough review, if you could get the data.
@ Lea:
I guess my understanding of what the Bible says about “the church” is that those in the church are supposed to care about you and your needs, just by virtue of you showing up or also being a member of the church.
I think that was one of several purposes Christ instituted the church (not only to have the Gospel spread).
You really should not have to be close personal buddies with people in the church for X years before any of them are willing to lend you a hand. IMO.
okrapod wrote:
Oh, I read this blog daily, having lived, loved and worked within the Evangelical vibe for a decade and more, and saw some of the worst of the burgeoning “discipling” movement back in the day…
Just, more often than not, having really not a horse in the race, I’m a dedicated lurker.
okrapod wrote:
Thank you, madam, for your kind words… Just, as previously stated, I lurk pretty much daily, but, as my own particular vibe is not Evangelical, Neo-Cal, nor really any expression of Christianity (although there was a dear man who was a Roman Catholic Priest, and another who pastors an Antiochian Orthodox congregation in L.A. that were wise counsel for me), I really don’t find myself generally with anything to contribute more than, “Yep… knew folks like that in the 80’s”… *chuckle*
Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:
I still get a smile on my face thinking about the IFB site that wanted to go church planting in a supposedly un-reached area of Europe. I clicked on the site’s map to see where they were talking about in more detail.
As it turned out, the areas to which they were referring already had TONS of churches (mostly Protestant), only no or not many IFB churches.
I laughed and laughed realizing the goobers behind the site think unless a city has an IFB church, it’s not going to get the Gospel.
No sir, locals aren’t going to be exposed to the Gospel from any icky Lutherans, Methodists, and whatever other churches I saw all over their church-planting map.
LOLOLOLOLOL.
Daisy wrote:
I agree with you. Formalized ministries can help with this. And certainly we should care about someone, even a stranger, simply because they are human. Some of the stories I’ve heard just blow my mind because they are so callous.
But we are still human. The kind of friendships I am looking for are deep, abiding and based on more than shared space, I guess. You will not have that with everyone in church, unless maybe you have a very small church. I think we are maybe different temperaments too because I keep a lot of stuff in unless I am really close to someone just naturally. I do not ask for help from people. So I generally look at things through that filter.
refugee wrote:
I think it’s a little bit of both. Maybe it’s just the only way.
@ Lea:
I’m not comfortable asking for help.
I’m an extreme introvert and am not comfortable being around people, either. I had to force myself out of the house and to attend church regularly after Mom died.
My mother was my one and only confidant. After she died, I was badly needing someone to talk to about the grief.
So, I tried folks at local churches and Christians in my family.
As to the church people, I spent time getting to know them for a period of weeks to see if they seemed trusthworthy before I opened up.
I would just assume that my Christian extended family would be there for me… because they are church goers, claim to love Jesus, and Mom always told me that “your family will always be there for you.”
The extended family either didn’t want to be bothered by me, or, they would be critical and judgmental.
Unfortunately, the church people I got to know weren’t much better.
IMO, I should’ve been able to go to any of these people (family or church people) for emotional support, but I either got nada, or I got shamed / lectured.
@ Daisy:
The real irony is I see the same behavior amoung academics; just replace your flavor of Christianity for your specific acdemic sub-discipline!!
Daisy wrote:
Which is crazy. You absolutely should have people in your life you can talk to. I hope you do now.
Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:
This Tim guy has/had somewhat close ties to the GARBC.
Eeyore wrote:
That implies Pastor and Elders KNOW that a lot of their sheeple would go over the wall and not stop running if they had the chance. Probably including Pastor’s Wifey and Elders’ Wifeys.
Daisy wrote:
As did Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, Mo David, Jim Jones, David Koresh…
(And John Calvin for that matter.)
God is SOOOOOOO Lucky to have them, isn’t He?
refugee wrote:
My Dear Wormwood,
I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics, specifically the redefinition of words into their “diabolical meanings”.
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
@ refugee:
well, since we identify much in sacred Scripture through the lens of Christ, then we can begin to comprehend the fruit in the light of how Christ was when He was among us
in the same way we can look at the bitter fruit shown by some ‘churches’ in how they treat abused people and they call it ‘truth in love’ according to THEIR interpretation of THEIR version of the bible ….. but like no way did Our Lord treat people with that kind of abuse and contempt, no
when the behavior is destructively cruel, it’s not a sample of the ‘fruit’ from the Holy Spirit, no
Daisy wrote:
I still keep thinking they scream those “teachings on marriage, abuse, and divorce” from their pulpits to keep their own wives from leaving them.
refugee wrote:
…they may indeed – that’ll teach me to let my researching slide!
okrapod wrote:
“I Know I’m Right —
I HAVE A VERSE!”
— refrain of a poem from one of the commenters either here or over at Internet Monk
Daisy wrote:
I think the “Walk Through The Bible” seminar set us up (speaking personally) for this kind of thinking, with their emphasis on the book of Judges being summarized as “every man did what he thought was best”.
Come to think of it, they were *firmly* complementarian. No women teachers allowed in that organization, thank you very much.
okrapod wrote:
This sounds dishearteningly like the discussions between the spouse and the offspring. He’s not a pastor, he just is whole-heartedly sold out to what is preached at the church a part of my family currently attends.
I wonder, does Calvinism have a special appeal to logical-analytical types?
@ refugee:
And people can seem to possess those fruits yet look the other way over abuse or ignore red flags of abuse. It all sounds great but Christianity has to have practical daily application.
Daisy wrote:
Amen to that. I never know what to say. I remember having coffee with a friend who lost a six-year-old to cancer, and we were talking about the six-year-old, and I was telling her some stories she didn’t know (like something funny the kid did when at the community pool with my kids when her kids were at our house for the day). She stopped in the middle of the conversation and thanked me, with tears in her eyes. She told me that everyone else tiptoed around the subject of her six-year-old, avoided talking about the kid or mentioning the kid at all, as if the kid had never existed.
It was an enlightening moment.
I would love to hear practical examples of how to be a comfort and not a burden or stumbling block to others who are hurting.
@ Christiane:
Our Lord did not look away when He saw people in trouble,
and neither do His followers.
If someone is ‘looking away’, it is like the walking passed the man wounded by thieves and left by the side of the road somewhere between Jerusalem and Jericho:
and the man who walked passed was on his way to pray at a temple …..
Our Lord gives us the example of a Samaritan (despised by the Pharisees of that time) who stopped and had mercy on the wounded man.
If those who claim to be followers of Our Lord ‘walk passed’ those in trouble, pretending not the ‘see’ their need,
they are not responding to the teachings of Our Lord in the Holy Gospels, no.
social gospel? …. no
just human kindness in response to compassion for another person who is suffering
@ okrapod:
I remember reading the book Shoah and being fascinated with the first chapter, that described the life of a Jewish family in the time before they were sent to a concentration camp. (The main part of the book is about surviving the camp, on the part of one of the sons, and his struggle to reclaim his life and faith after the war.)
Faith was woven into every thought and action he described in that first chapter. Very thought-provoking.
https://www.amazon.com/Shoah-Journey-Personal-Triumph-Holocaust/dp/0967972108/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1482442472&sr=8-2&keywords=shoah+journey+from+the+ashes
Daisy wrote:
One of the arguments in favor of membership contracts given by the elders (in the current church where some of our family members attend) was that without people signing a membership contract (covenanting to the church and to each other), how would the elders know who needed care?
Seriously.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG, more and more, I am having the same thought. How many women are trapped in marriage to a NP preacher who won’t let her go because it would damage his image? Some of them can only get out because the “preacher” branches out and casts her off for a new companion. (Witness TT and P Wilson…)
refugee wrote:
I guess actually talking to people never occurred to them.
I also guess these ‘harass the members till the cows come home’ folks never show when they are actually needed, only when they are unwanted.
Lea wrote:
Yes this! One cannot say how twist this is enough.
“On the night that Jesus was born, who comes to love, die for, forgive and set free all sinners, we HBC would like to excommunicate this lady here for fleeing from her abusive husband! Because we believed that when Hagar fled from the abusive Abraham and Sarah, Hagar was clearly sinning! Yeah God was clearly on Hagar’s side on that one but who cares about that! Neo-Calvinism must rule the world!”
It doesn’t get any better than this. This is a clear example of how neo-Calvinists are messed up.
Lea wrote:
I think they were just parroting the script provided by 9Marks, actually.
The only reason I am able to attend that church, on occasion (out of deference to the feelings of family members, I’m sorry to say, rather than any desire to be at church), is because the church doesn’t act like my understanding of a 9Marks church. The elders are caring and compassionate. They listen to people, even non-members, and sometimes they even change the way they are doing things in response. They reach out to the community outside of the church. Women sing on the worship team, have ministry roles, and even read scripture on occasion.
I don’t know how long it will last, but so long as the people there continue to display hearts of flesh and not hearts of stone, I will attend.
refugee wrote:
Hence the euphemism. We think Care, they mean Control. If they meant “care” it shouldn’t matter whether whether the person attended, was a member or just somebody that needed help. They want a list so they know who they can control and if you sign one of their (thing that holds back water) membership contracts you get put on “the list”. Don’t get put on the list.
refugee wrote:
I honestly think this whole church discipline thing is not a problem if it is only rarely being used to deal with people who, for instance, are unrepentant child molesters or abusive or something. So if you have non-controlling caring church leadership, they won’t (hopefully) even think of using it for these crazy reasons.
If you have a membership ‘covenant’ that is treated like a longer version of a regular membership you aren’t going to have issues either.
A lot of this only becomes a problem when controlling unloving people are put in charge. The rest of the problems come from well meaning, but not discerning, people who are trying to follow the leader and do what they’ve been taught is the right way. Hopefully those people are teachable.
Bill M wrote:
If they care, all they need is for someone to call them or come talk to them about someone how needs help. They don’t need them to sign a form first.
refugee wrote:
Yes, things were so much better after they had a King. I wish we had a sarcasm font.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yeah, well I have a multipurpose verse. Maybe I ought to get it printed up on a card and give it out.
‘Depart from me you workers of iniquity. I never knew you.’
@ Christiane:
In insulated heirarchical caste system denominations how would people know? They only know what they are told. It’s all so secretive and everything is presented to look good on the outside.
The historical mantra in situations of abuse has been ‘go tell your pastor or priest’. Now we need to call the authorities and a lawyer.
I guess I am confused about the Body of Christ and church. If the abuse is secret, or not dealt with properly until made public and they have to, how will those who are the Body of Christ in the church deal with it? Continue to support the church which.
These are questions I had to ask myself. At what point was I actually supporting abusive systems thinking. Where is the boundary line? I guess I view following Christ in a much more practical application. And I think that is different for everyone.
I am grateful for people who speak out. But it is usually an abused member. Rarely the hierarchy. In Spotlight we saw it was an outsider. A Jewish editor who did not grow up in that Catholic enclave who insisted they look at the higher ups.
I know someone who is now a CEO of a multinational corporations who about 15 years ago left his Corp ladder to take the top admin position in a mega. He lasted one year and went back to the ladder. He thought the place was whacked out. But he will never say such publicly.
@ Lydia:
try to think of the Body of Christ in a way that is meaningful to you ….. if you consider that many Christian people call it ‘the universal Church’, I interpret that as meaning it is the entity that incorporates all baptised professing Christ-followers who, with good will, are attempting to live their lives guided by Our Lord’s teachings …. that does not place all of these people in buildings no, and not even in the same time or place:
the Body of Christ includes all people who have ever lived as baptized followers of Christ, including the very first Christians and all the way to the present time
My Church has its own ‘meaningful definition’ that includes the above one and yes, we see the Body of Christ as including people who may be ‘divided’ from one another by ‘denomination’, but not separated from Our Lord,
so they are considered our ‘separated’ brethren but still our brethren ‘in Christ’, just not sharing in the same sacramental worship. . . . . and yet they ARE members of the Body
maybe this helps a little bit, but only if you can find something in it that makes sense to you as integral to your own beliefs and your own experiences
My own Church uses the term ‘the mystical Body of Christ’ which probably doesn’t ‘translate’ well.
Do I think people who mistreat others willingly are ‘members’???? of the Body ?????? If they have willingly walked away and denied their Lord, they have chosen the state of sinful separation from Him and from others in the Body.
I think they have wandered away from Christ and need to repent and return to Him, to make attempts to do right by those they have injured, and then to confess in the way they know how, and to return to the Lord’s Table ….. it’s not the same as ‘once saved, always saved’ in my Church so there is that to think about also … much more, but out of time
I have been a very close friend to Marie for over a decade. I know firsthand what she has gone through, and I am well aware of the behind the scenes character assassination that Tim has executed against Marie. Marie has only shared a portion of the emails, messages, and phone calls that she has received, not only from Pastor Tim, but from other people with whom he has shared his skewed version of the story. Some of them are/were professional colleagues of Marie’s, who have now joined his ranks to aid him in the ongoing abuse. Perhaps HBC should begin the Matthew 18 process on Pastor Tim. He has continued to harangue and harass Marie for months, and he has now threatened to expose her so-called sin to a church in which she is no longer a member. How does that little fact KEEP GETTING OVERLOOKED? I have advised Marie that in my opinion she should release all the hate messages she has received, and let everyone decide if they are truly sent “in love” and with good intentions. Marie, you are one of the strongest people I know, and I love you like a sister. Hang in there! Please know I am with you through thick and thin, and I will always have your back.
refugee wrote:
No. Not to this one, anyway.
To be at the forefront of a revolution supposedly sparked by a new and vibrant understanding of God’s astounding liberty to break his own rules for the sake of love… only to turn it into a desiccated corpse of rules, technical specifications and a multi-thousand word treatise exhaustively defining the institutes of the Christian religion – that’s not logical or analytical.
God is logical and analytical. He applied these characteristics to create a universe so fantastically well-engineered that the beautiful simplicity of its underlying rules has led many to doubt whether anyone created it at all.
There’s a widespread belief that logic and analysis are somehow the opposite of life. There’s certainly a widespread belief in UK charismatic circles that they are the enemies of “the spirit”. Neither widespread belief is true.
I think Calvinism is for those who want an answer now. But the answers found in the Kingdom take a lifetime to even begin to grasp.
@ Christiane:
What you have said ought to be perfectly understandable to protestants. I have heard it all my life. They may not all agree, though an awful lot would. But they all should understand what you are saying.
In my youth we dealt with this in SS and youth groups and such usually under the heading of are catholics christians and usually because some kid would bring up the issue and nobody could totally avoid talking about it. After hashing around the consensus would be that christians are those who believe in Jesus and that constitutes ‘saved’. Omit the baptized idea since some protestants consider baptism as necessary to salvation and some do not. But either way, protestants would comprehend what you are saying.
BTW, when I was a resident in the late sixties this idea of separated brethren had just hit the Catholic world as part of the VII decisions and some of them were horrified at the idea. I have told the story before of Sister Mary Holier Than God who had that little confrontation with me in the hospital hallway over this issue. She said, through the closest thing that I have ever seen to clenched teeth ‘I will never say it.’
We ‘have come a long way, baby’.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Amen and amen. That was inspired. Thank you for this entire post, Brother Nick. You have put into a few succint words what I have been floundering around trying to articulate. You have a gift, you know…
Nancy2 wrote:
I always love reading your story Nancy2 and how you were raised!
Since I was kicked out of a complementarian, authoritarian church — Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley — for having a spine, a backbone, my own ideas and not being a willing doormat or wall-to-wall carpeting for the pastors/elders’ to walk on, and anybody else who wanted to, I read The Mighty Girl postings on Facebook about successful women and girls, women who’ve won a Nobel Prize, and post those stories to the Facebook pages I started for church spiritual abuse survivors.
It was suffocating being in a church that clipped the wings of women and girls—and was proud of it. I look at their lives and wonder how much further they could have gone, used the talents God gave them, if not for such horrible men for fathers in their lives (and enabling mothers).
What a bunch of malicious losers. Yeah, I have contempt for these wolves in sheep’s clothing.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Oh my yes. Only I don’t know who takes up with Calvinism, but the idea that intuitive thinking/perception and analytical thinking cannot be compatible is pretty widespread, while the idea that God is ‘all of the above’ is a hard sell.
I do think, however, that Calvinism is about the last place that analytical thinking would take anybody. Too much conjecture. Too many conclusions drawn without thorough analyses of the suppositions. Too narrow boundaries and too little flexibility, which may seem a strange thing to say about analytical thinking, but setting up a system about which one can actually reason only to a point but has to quit when reason takes one elsewhere-nah.
but this that you said: “God is logical and analytical. He applied these characteristics to create a universe so fantastically well-engineered that the beautiful simplicity of its underlying rules has led many to doubt whether anyone created it at all.” is awesome. I agree with Roebuck, He gave you that to say. Wow. Thanks.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Calvinists certainly think of themselves as logical and analytical, though.
I think this might be a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who think they have figured everything out actually haven’t, and their beliefs aren’t nearly as logical as they think they are.
Whereas people who actually do think more logically tend to be more epistemologically humble, and are willing to admit how little they actually know.
okrapod wrote:
Indeed we have. I lost my mother in 2001 and since my parents were residents in assisted living (a Catholic facility), my father received grief counseling …. the thing was the minister was Methodist and hes served two Catholic facilities as resident minister for the residents. Keith really helped my father during this time. You have to understand that my father never went to a Protestant service, not even a funeral …. he would drive my mother to the service and stay IN THE CAR waiting for her, but he didn’t feel he could go inside. After Keith worked with my father, Pop went to the Wednesday mass with the priest at the facility and then he would STAY and attend Keith’s Protestant service as well (I was so proud of him), and he received communion at both. If the Holy Spirit could heal my father’s heart of worry about ‘the others’, then I have much hope for the rest of the Church. I lost my father some years ago and miss him very much, but I am so happy that he found a place among those he previously would not have worshiped with. He deserved this as blessing before his departure. He was always the best man I knew. 🙂
@Dale,
I think I knew you from Creekside Bible Church in Indian Trail. When we resigned our membership from that church, we were told that our “resignation” was not accepted. As if it was really there choice. I just laughed at them.
The problem is the way Tim and the elders apply their doctrine. They claim to know the letter of the scriptures… but they don’t seem to understand the intent as evidenced by Marie’s and others’ situations. So sad for all of the divisiveness and damage those elders have caused. Praying for the people (Heb 13) for which THE ELDERS will give an account.
@ Christiane:
What a beautiful thing, and what fine memories you have. Peace, Christiane, and may there be lots more Peace ahead for us all.
Christiane that means a great deal to me what you posted, I dont do well with grief but it is getting better. Holidays still are a bit hard. Thank You.
Marnie wrote:
Thank you so much, Marnie. I appreciate that.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Yeah, I think it appeals to people who want to believe they are smarter than others, or they should know everything, and usually that belief means they really aren’t very logical because it’s really based on emotions or some sort of psychological disorder. Some of the Calvinistas I’ve known have clearly had NPD, while others seemed to have self-esteem issues. Others just followed others into it without questioning much at all.
okrapod wrote:
The best analogy I’ve been able to come up with for Calvinism is “Christian Crack.” it provides an easy and quick euphoria, but it takes more and more to get the same experience. It’s dealers don’t really believe in it for themselves, but they can live a good lifestyle by selling it. The users cannot see the damage it is doing to themselves and others. The deeper they get into it the more they have to stay in denial. In the end it destroys lives.
It might appeal to people who want to think of themselves as good thinkers, but it is so full of logical holes that it does not fool the truly good thinkers.
brian wrote:
yes, I still get sad sometimes at the holidays, but I’m told that is a sign of how much we loved the ones who went on before us …. even as a aging senior, my own husband will grow quiet at some point on Christmas Day and we know that he is remembering the father of his best friend who died on Christmas Day …. that man had been like a father to my husband, as his own father was very ill from the effects of being gassed in WWI.
We allow my husband his quiet moments, and in truth, we all now have those moments ourselves, having recently in the past several years lost a very dear family member suddenly. It is said that ‘grief is the price we pay for love’, and if that’s true, then I am at peace with it, but still …. there are no words …. there are no words.
Thank you for your kind comment. God Bless and keep you close this Christmas Day.
@ okrapod:
May it be so. 🙂
@ Marnie:
While not needed, a second opinion/testimony positively (ed.) contributes to the WW, and this (ed.) sad saga.
Typoes “Positively” and “this sad saga”
My daughter and her husband go a church where there are “no memberships”. The pastor tells the people that if they consider this to be their church, then he guesses they are members. He doesn’t believe in signing membership cards, etc. Also, there are offering plates placed at the end of the aisles as church is dismissed. The pastor tells them, that if they want to give a gift of money (not a tithe), then they are free to do so. No one will ever pressure them to give. I want to go to this type of church. Unfortunately this is in Utah, right in the heart of Mormon country. But it’s not a Mormon church. The pastor preaches about how to build relationships the way God wants us to. My kids love this church. I believe this is the way church is supposed to be.
@ Christiane:
When I was growing up, you could come to my church and partake communion. (I don’t think you can today in many SBC churches) but I could not do the same in a Catholic Church even today. I am glad you don’t consider those who cannot partake with your tribe as outside the bounds of what is the body.
When I visited the Episcopalians, I asked beforehand and they said all are welcome. It’s sort of a litmus test with me because it is something between the individual and Christ that no mediator should have a say in or make exclusive if they believe in the Body of Christ as universal. But it is their right to do so I would defend vigorously. I have been sorely disappointed that in the last 20 years or so more and more SB’s have become so exclusive.
Joe wrote:
I agree. Unfamiliar with MA law, but this is clearly harmful behavior.
@ Christiane:
@ okrapod:
I used to teach in a Christian school. Both staff and students were quite a mix of faiths. We were mostly Catholics and Baptists, but we also had some Methodists, Presbyterians, Nazarenes, Lutherans ……….
I taught math grades 7-12, so I don’t know very much about what went on in the the Bible classes, but I do know that everyone got along well. Sometimes the kids would ask one another questions about their religious beliefs, but being from different faiths wasn’t detrimental to friendships or teamwork. They prayed together and played together. When a student accepted Jesus as his/her Savior, no one cared what church they attended. We just celebrated together.
If teenagers of different faiths can work things out and function well together, why can’t adults?
@ Marnie:
Marie is blessed to have you as a friend.
Lydia wrote:
The Assyrian Church of the East actually has open communion, which is somewhat unique since it has no historical ties to Protestantism or the Reformation at all.
Rather, the reason they instituted that policy is because their status in relation to the other small-c “catholic” churches (RC, EO, OO) was ambiguous for much of their history, and also because they’ve suffered massive hardships over the years which have today reduced the membership to only around 500,000. They can’t exactly shut people out when they’re in such a vulnerable position.
The Assyrian Church are often called “Nestorian”, and some adherents do embrace that label, while others (including the late patriarch, Mar Dinkha IV) reject it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East
It’s fascinating to read about all this stuff. It helps provide a corrective to the “Western-centric” understanding many people have about Christianity and church history. The Assyrians, in fact, were the first church to conduct missionary work in China, and there were theological texts written in Chinese, clearly presenting the same faith and yet presenting it within a radically different philosophical framework than the Hellenistic one most of the other church fathers used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Sutras
Bill M wrote:
Yep. We have commenters on the West Coast and abroad who hopefully aren't posting at 3 a.m. EST. 🙂
And if you can't sleep in the middle of the night, feel free to chime in. 😉
9Marks has a timely article on “unbiblical” divorce: https://9marks.org/mailbag/46/
Harley wrote:
SO not surprised this is in Utah. The dominant church puts great stress on membership, so much so that it took a lawsuit in the 1980s to provide another way out of membership besides excommunication. And tithing is pushed, pushed, pushed. You can’t get a temple recommend unless you’re paid up on your tithing.
The pastor of that church clearly recognizes that membership and tithing are hot buttons and is trying to avoid them. I think that’s smart!
Ken F wrote:
My response to this 9 Marks article is Mind Your Own Business! These guys are like the spiritual equivalent of voyeurs.
@ Marnie:
Thanks so much for being a loyal friend to Marie. I am so sorry that some have treated Marie so badly from her former pastors to former friends, etc.
I personally don’t have a problem publishing critical/hateful emails Marie has received (if Marie is agreeable). Dee and I will discuss this possibility…
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
Well stated!
Dale wrote:
I would agree with this statement. In some cases people have been raised in these closed communities. When they leave, they leave everything. In Marie’s case, I get the feeling the goal is to stop the harassment so it was in this context I meant to say “punch out”.
For each person, it’s different. Some battles are worth fighting and some are not. It is ok to look out for number one. Not everyone has to stay and fight the good fight. I think winning and leaving are not mutually exclusive.
Jack wrote:
Totally agree with this.
I have one question and hopefully someone hasn’t already asked this question.
It sure is something to see all these (usually male led) churches imposing “church discipline” on wives that are leaving/divorcing their abusive husbands or at least threatening to do impose “discipline” if the wife does this. What frequency are these same churches or other churches imposing “church discipline” on the husbands that are abusing their wives physically or verbally and causing separation/divorce to occur? Is this a case of churches mostly imposing “discipline” on wives?
If so why is this the case? Shouldn’t abusive husbands be similarly disciplined. Is this a case of abusive husbands repeatedly abusing their wives and then repeatedly claiming to repent and thus these husbands don’t get “church discipline” imposed on them? Church leaders claim the husband has “repented” even though he is a chronic abuser?
It sure seems quite imbalanced how this discipline is applied (only disciplining the wives) but excuse the husbands’ actions that many times cause a wife to want to divorce.
Maybe they should discipline both at least? It is late and hopefully this comment makes sense.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
Pornography for the Pious.
How else can the Righteous get their JUICY porn fix and still stay Respectable?
ishy wrote:
Just like Communism in its heyday.
johanna wrote:
Hmmm. I wonder.
Did you sign a membership covenant? Did the membership covenant require mandatory tithing of money, time, and resources?
If they can ever figure out how to enforce the tithing clause and convince people that once they sign, they’re committed for life, they have a guaranteed income stream.
@ Steve240:
I think it has something to do with the abusive husbands telling the elders what they want to hear (manipulative people are good at that), while the wives are telling the elders things they don’t want to hear (divorce in the church? might be seen as some kind of failure, especially in a church that is trying to present “perfect” people so that churchianity looks attractive to outsiders and more people will want to join).
If an abuser soberly tells the elders he’s sorry and he wants his wife back and he wants to be an intact family (and intact families show how well the church is doing, and have a higher likelihood of tithing, too, don’t they?), but the wife says she’s done — which one sounds more like they’re going to get a positive, affirming reaction from the elders? Which one is going to be accused of rebelling against God’s best, and unforgiveness (the unforgivable sin), and bitterness?
Lydia wrote:
I believe the main reason that the Church has ‘closed communion’ has to do with what is said prior to receiving ….. the priest will say ‘Body of Christ’ and the recipient will reply ‘Amen’. This is in acknowledgement of the Catholic belief in the Real Presence, which non-Catholic folks don’t accept in the same way (although Lutherans and Episcopalians have an understanding about it but in a different way) ….. an Orthodox person in an emergency or if no Orthodox Church was in the vicinity, might receive, as they share the belief closely enough to respond ‘Amen’ honestly.
Yeah, I wish everyone could partake. But maybe in time …. maybe in time ….. I’m sorry that your daughter was told she could not receive that time you mentioned here some time ago as she was a child and I think the priest should have given her communion in her innocence. I don’t think it’s right to turn any child away from the Table, no.
Yeah, my Church is ‘inclusive’ in who they see as being ‘in the Body of Christ’ and even inclusive in who they view as candidates for salvation in the eyes of God ….. but that’s another story, not so easy to comprehend but filled with hope in the power of the Paschal Event.
Off-topic short announcement. Shuana in Texas was able to pay some important bills for her and her son Billy (Dee previously wrote about Billy’s being abused). She is working part-time at the grocery store and has some cleaning jobs toward Christmas for Billy.
She still needs car repairs.
Shauna on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 11:27 AM said:
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
Good morning everyone, update!!! I managed to pay bills with the recent gofundme funds. Thank you thank you!!!! I still have a bit more to go including my car getting the check engine and brake lights turned off this cost a bit since I need sensors. I have until the 31st after that I can’t drive because they will not pass my inspection foR my car and I need it to pass in order to register it. I have between now and Sunday to try to do some side jobs to give billy Christmas im on it though. today im on cupcake duty and then onto holiday cakes. Please continue to pray for us. Thank you all of you for blessing our home and continuing to pray for billy.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, I understand quite well. I didn’t question the red flags, or perhaps the better way to say it is, I didn’t take a stand against the abuse after I was aware of the red flags. Peer pressure works that way in insular groups. It was only after I left and went back to some meetings in my former cult that I dared to speak out against the leader’s manipulative behavior. I never felt so free, so unafraid, when I made the decision to speak out, knowing that I would be slandered and ridiculed. At that point I didn’t care because I had broken free from their peer pressure. I no longer desired to be part of the group-think tank.
Christiane wrote:
But not inclusive in letting those in the body of Christ receive communion? . . . This and Protestant churches fencing the table makes no sense to me.
johanna wrote:
Hi Johanna. Yes, I was a member at Creekside. Creekside was a church plant by several former members of Grace Fellowship Church. Sadly both churches are infected with 9marks teaching.
Dale wrote:
I learned that 9 Marks was no more than a re-issuing of the 1970’s cultic, un-Biblical, heavy Shepherding Movement, most of whose Florida founders repented for its abuses and authoritarianism. Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman have done so much damage to so many Christians’ lives and to our witness before unbelievers. 9 Marks is nothing more than Salem Witch Trials II, in my opinion, having lived through it at my former church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley (complete with excommunications and shunnings for the slighest dissent/critical thinking skills, including my own — the third at the church).
Ken F wrote:
I have a huge problem with this that starts in the question where the pastor (?) says he inherited a church with divorcees and ‘I assume these are unbiblical divorces’.
Why do you assume that!!! Are these guys from the no biblical divorce school of thought? They never mentions what make a divorce ‘unbiblical’ but assume they all are.
Steve240 wrote:
I’ve mentioned this before but I would love to see data on this stuff (10 church discipline incidents this year broken out by sex race reasons). I’m not sure it exists, and if so it isn’t publicized by any of these guys.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
Thanks for the information! It is fascinating to read about the ancient lines of Christians. I can imagine their lives are brutal today. And I agree about the Western-centric aspects.
I am not a “sacraments as a means of grace” person but respect the right to believe that. I do think that welcoming all to the table is an act of love. Exclusion communicates the opposite.
Christiane wrote:
The Neo Cals often told me I just couldn’t understand. :o) If partaking is a means of grace, I find it difficult to make your connections about the CC and inclusiveness of the Body.
@ Lydia:
I can explain this to you. It is easy enough to understand. However, I will first look it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be able to quote references in order to avoid endless quibble back and forth. But right now I do not have time to do all that due to pressing things I/we have to get done today. Maybe later this evening, maybe next week. But this is not difficult to comprehend once you have all the pieces to the puzzle. What I am saying specifically is that it is easy enough to disagree with for those who disagree, but it is not difficult to comprehend what they are saying.
BTW, as often as you discuss Catholic issues you might want to get a paper back copy of the CCC for your own reference. They are cheap enough and there is no need to access it on line where it is not only difficult to read (talking about difficult to see, fine print, etc) but where you cannot also put little post it notes as you track down related ideas in order to get a better view of the inter-relatedness of various Catholic ideas. Catholicism is complicated. I do not pretend to be any resource person in this area, but I have learned how to track down some ideas and I have come to peace with the fact that it is something that a Protestant, even one who converts, will never really get a feel for, which explains the emphasis on who is and who is not a ‘cradle catholic.’ Just saying.
We can talk more over on the ODP if you want-preferably after Christmas.
@ Velour:
Thank you for the updates.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
How about when something bad happens to them (i.e. the rich and powerful)?
Something like this, perchance? 😉
https://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/calvin-and-hobbes-on-fatalism/
Lea wrote:
Probably means only the husbands have the right to divorce, though in the Bible the language makes it sound like only women have the right to divorce.
I don’t know that I really believe men can make covenants, so I think their whole obsession with covenants is just another way they try to usurp the authority of God.
ishy wrote:
So much of this has to do with control-freakiness.
I recall a discussion of this topic, where the consensus reached was that when unbelievers divorced and remarried, they weren’t bound by biblical rules (being unbelievers) but once they became believers their marriage vows solidified.
The idea of “biblical” divorce will vary depending on the sect. Here are some of the flavors I’ve run across:
In cases where one partner is a danger to the other partner or to the children, but the church teaches against divorce for any reason:
– no divorce, but separation is okay.
– divorce is okay, but no remarriage.
– divorce from an abusive unbeliever is okay; remarriage is only okay if both parties are “christians”
In cases where the church teaches against divorce for any reason, in a clear-cut case of abuse:
– separation is okay for a season, while making preparations for and working actively toward reconciliation
Then there was the church we attended for a few years that did not have a teaching or stance on divorce. It seemed to be a haven of sorts; in one bible study class where the topic came up, a majority of the couples there were remarried-after-divorcing.
Bridget wrote:
well, BRIDGET
you are no longer Catholic by your own report, so if you went to a Catholic Church and came up for communion, could you say with all honesty upon honor and conscience the word ‘Amen’ when the priest held the host before you and said ‘Body of Christ’????
I think you know that the Church does not wish for people to lie when they say the ‘Amen’, that for the Church, the ‘Amen’ means ‘I believe this to be true and I affirm this my faith’
Think about the difference in how Holy Communion is seen in the Catholic faith as opposed to that poor neo-Cal preacher who once joked to his congregation that he had brought the cheapest bread he could find and put it on the back table and they could go grab a piece of it on their way out the door as they left?
It’s different. My husband was raised Lutheran, and they also have a very elevated view of communion, although their theology is not identical. The idea of the Real Presence shows up in many Protestant main line Churches but with a different view as to how Our Lord IS present.
It’s a big deal. For a Catholic, that ‘Amen’ means much when receiving. I think you will get it if you think about it.
okrapod wrote:
I think you are very knowledgeable and I thank you for being willing to share good advice. That Vatican Catechism is on line if people google ‘Vatican Catechism’. Thanks again and blessed holiday to you.
refugee wrote:
The Calvinstas don’t say a word about their cronies getting divorced, like Tchividjian, so I think it’s really conditional on your “caste” and gender.
The control-freakery really is quite evident in how they are putting husbands in the position of God in ESS. Husbands are God, women are Jesus who eternally submits, and the whole “children are the Holy Spirit” makes no sense at all theologically.
The problem is that Jesus called His disciples His bride, that he would build a house for them. But of course, anything in the gospels “doesn’t count” in Calvinista theology. They’d never accept being compared with women.
ishy wrote:
You wonder how they verbalize their belief in what was going on in the Incarnation???
ishy wrote:
That is an excellent point.
There was another “biblical” divorce thing I remembered, but it’s so crazy I’m not sure of getting the details right. It went something like, two divorced unbelievers get married, and then they become believers. If one or both of the previous spouses have not remarried, the couple in question are obligated to divorce and go back to the original spouse(s).
Reminds me of the Sadduces trying to trip up Jesus with their complicated story of the woman who married one brother after another.
It might have been in that same discussion that a “voice of reason” came up with the opinion that unbelievers marrying and divorcing was not covered by biblical rules, and their become believers was something like passing through a curtain, where everything was new and they were to go forward from there, not compound the damage by divorcing and seeking to remarry the original spouse.
Whew. I’m tired just trying to think that through and remember enough of the discussion to be able to type that out.
Life is so much messier than those “perfect” churches would have you think.
Lea wrote:
Facebook has revealed countless conservative Christian women who filed for divorce from abusive husbands only to have their churches (9 Marxists, Acts 29, etc.) order that they be excommunicated and shunned. Just despicable these pastors/elders.
refugee wrote:
Thank you for caring!
Christiane wrote:
It’s in the gospels, so just pretend it didn’t happen! That’s what you do with anything that doesn’t fit the “Framework”.
refugee wrote:
I have not yet found a coherent definition of Biblical divorce on the 9Marks site, but here is how John MacArthur views it: http://www.gty.org/resources/distinctives/DD04/divorce-and-remarriage
ishy wrote:
Husbands get final say on all decisions in their world.
I guess if an abused wife files for divorce and the husband disagrees, the wife is committing a blantantly sin by disobeying the husband.
OTOH, if the husband wants a divorce so he can chase after some “hottie”, it’s all good because the the wife must “submit to him in everything”.
Ken F wrote:
Johnny Mac does not support divorce on grounds of abuse. Here’s what he says in one q&a:
“But I would say that’s only a possibility in that text. I really feel that if we are obedient to the word of God in that kind of a situation, God would give us the grace to endure a lot more severe things than we think. So, what we do is this; we counsel people this way:if you’re in an abusive situation, there’s not adultery involved, it’s just abusive, cruelty, or something like that–I don’t think alcoholism is necessarily in the same category. But where there’s beatings, where it affects you or the children, there’s nothing to say that you shouldn’t step away, get away to preserve your own health, and your own safety, and your own security. You don’t need to stay there and just be beaten to a pulp. God’s given us a self-defense mechanism. But I don’t think that’s grounds for divorce biblically. I think you have to hang in there and that’s what makes great prayer warriors “
@ Nancy2:
https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2221/Dialogue-on-Divorce?Term=Abuse
@ Nancy2:
What a steaming pile of horse$#it (MacArthur’s ‘biblical’ pronouncement).
@ Muff Potter:
No kidding! The RCC stance may have change since then, but:
Many years ago, I had a devout Catholic friend who’s husband beat her. (They have three children together, all girls.). When he finally beat her badly enough that she had to be hospitalized for 3 days, she filed a restraint order against him be for she was released. After she got out of the hospital, she filed for divorce. The Church excommunicated her.For her own safety, and the safety of the daughters, she never looked back!
Muff Potter wrote:
I don’t know why he people still listen to him. I am tempted to write that he is leading people astray. But certainly his followers have a responsibility to check things out for themselves. Critical thinking seems to be among the most heinous sins in New-Calvinism.
Muff Potter wrote:
Indeed.
At my John MacArthur “franchise” — Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley — this insanity went as far as a woman church member in her 50’s picking fights with people at social events in seconds when she found out they were divorced. She DEMANDED that they call their ex-spouse their “current spouse” and said that they “weren’t really divorced in the eyes of God”.
Apparently because nuts like her “say so” — all of our laws don’t exist any more (including family law). I guess the new 10+ story family law court in Santa Clara County/Silicon Valley/San Jose, CA is just a figment of everybody’s imagination.
I couldn’t abide by those nutcases at that church.
I have spent decades working in law and have a paralegal education (straight A’s).
Christiane wrote:
Makes ya’ wonder too when Jesus and his friends did their last Passover Seder together, if the bread was second-rate, and the wine cheap rot-gut swill.
Muff Potter wrote:
The water, however, was TOP RATE!
Muff Potter wrote:
Here’s a POS viewpoint put out by TGC: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sandy-willson-on-biblical-grounds-for-divorce
Note all the caveats for cases of abuse. It sounds like the best course of action is to declare oneself an “unbeliever” by renouncing Calvinism and the “Doctrines of Grace” (since when did grace become a doctrine?). That would make the divorce “Biblical” in their eyes, but then they would probably come after you for being an unbeliever. But one could then fall back to the defense of not being one of the elect.
Nancy2 wrote:
John MacArthur is dangerous in so many ways.
Nancy2 wrote:
good for her that she got out …. I don’t know who in the Church handled how she was treated but Canon Law is on HER side:
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2012/01/03/divorced-catholics-and-the-eucharist/
Your friend left for morally right reasons and she definitely has a case under Canon Law and I hope she will pursue the case and find a healthy resolution. She did the right thing. She should not have been ‘ex-communicated’ in a situation where Canon Law understands that a wife may leave an abusive spouse.
Christiane wrote:
I know this, which is why I feel unwelcome in the Catholic church, and some Protestant churches. I am not accepted at the communion table, and I would not lie just to be accepted at the table. My conscience would not allow this.
Christiane wrote:
These are not the only two alternatives to communion. There is much in-between. I don’t happen to agree with either of the extremes above.
Ken F wrote:
I think that he’s still able to hold many in his thrall because they want quick and easy answers. Easy answers that do not require any work or critical thinking as you’ve stated. Answers that adherents can take to the bank with no questions asked.
Christiane wrote:
Yes. I went to a Lutheran church at Easter last year. They did not even serve communion on Easter. But I had read their little description of what it meant to them and had already decided, sitting in the ones that I would not take communion because it would go against my conscience.
Muff Potter wrote:
This is why I think Calvinism is the Crack Cocaine version of Christianity.
Ken F wrote:
Indeed, he is as I sadly learned after my horrific tour-of-duty of one of a church pastored by one of his “franchisees”/graduate of The Masters’ Seminary. Abusive, lying, bullying, small-minded, hateful. Excommunications/shunning for the slightest dissent.
Authoritarianism. Control over adult Christians’ lives that is totally un-Biblical and absuive. No boundaries! #GraceBibleFellowshipOfSiliconValley
Christiane wrote:
Communion means much to me as well.
I didn’t say I didn’t get, I said:
Bridget wrote:
Me –
But not inclusive in letting those in the body of Christ receive communion? . . . This and Protestant churches fencing the table makes no sense to me.
So, I have thought about it and I disagree with withholding communion from a believer. Wherever this happens, it makes me feel unwelcome as a believer, so I don’t go there, although I would go if I was accepted as God’s own. I don’t see how the Catholic inclusiveness can also exclude those same believers from communion. The Protestant churches that fence the table pretty much don’t accept you as even a believer unless they have vetted you through their lense.
Ken F wrote:
A pre-Neo-Calvisim quote from 1991, delivered one of the characters in Orson Scott Card’s his *Ender’s Game* saga book Speaker for the Dead, in which religious groups colonize the cosmos. It may not be denominationally accurate to the future, put perhaps theologically:
“She had disliked the pervasiveness of Lutheran thought, especially the Calvinist faction, who seemed to have an answer to every question before it had even been asked.” ~ Speaker for the Dead, p. 113.
Bridget wrote:
Maybe the whole construct is wrong. Maybe the various strands of the church throughout history turned it more into a formal ceremony than what was intended. I’ve wondered if the main point is that we are supposed to be grateful for what Jesus did for us by remembering it whenever we “break bread.” I accidentally received communion in a RC church when I was in college (I did not know I was not allowed and no one turned me away). I’m still alive more than 30 years later…
Ken F wrote:
He skipped over the “desertion” part completetly. Desertion can encompass quite a bit.
PS – I didn’t read the part about the churches responsibility.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Spot on Ken F. and Brad.
Muff Potter wrote:
LOL…I couldn’t agree more. What a pompous blowhole.
I listened to MacArthur on Christian radio occasionally the past few years. Didn’t care for him. I quit listening to Christian radio altogether some months ago when I heard Chip Ingram use the word *winsome* twice in four sentences.
I’m not kidding.
Ken F wrote:
Crystal Meth fits the bill equally well.
@ Nancy2:
I would consider abuse – desertion!!
Muff Potter wrote:
Even better, because people get pretty abusive on meth.
Ken F wrote:
I subscribe to former President Jimmy Carter’s thoughts on the matter, he’s a long-time Sunday school teacher and from what I’ve heard a very good one, and I will take communion at whatever church I am at. He does that and has written about it.
Ken F wrote:
Good to hear 😉 I honestly would not have expected anything different . . . life that is!
Ken F wrote:
That’s because to the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and vice versa. You should still purchase a conference place + 3-month course of healing consultations for generational curses.
Or something.
Probably.
Velour wrote:
Card is a Mormon, if I remember correctly. Which might explain the mistake (a Mormon would be less familiar with the divisions within Protestantism than a Protestant would be).
On the other hand, perhaps he was thinking of the crypto-Calvinists, also known as Philippists (who were a sect within Lutheranism that caused a controversy).
The neo-Cal attempt to take over the SBC has a lot of historical precedents; there have been quite a few times in the past where a group with Calvinist or Calvinist-leaning teachings attempted to reform or take over an existing church. The Philippists within Lutheranism were one example; the Jansenists were such a group within Catholicism, and there was also such a group within the Greek Orthodox church too (whose teachings were rejected at the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem).
ishy wrote:
I suspect the “children are the Holy Spirit” teaching couldn’t have originated without the filioque, which Calvinists (being Westerners) historically affirmed.
That’s not to say the filioque _necessarily_ leads to ESS or the neocals’ hamfisted attempt to “familialize” the Trinity. But it certainly played a role in it. Neocals may not recite the Creed all that much but at least they’re aware of it (although, as with everything from the pre-Reformation era, they only embrace it insofar as it can be used to support Calvinism).
By the way, some mainline denominations (such as the Anglican Communion, if I’m not mistaken) have dropped the filioque from the Creed.
Bridget wrote:
Mainline denominations almost always have open communion (with the possible exception of Lutheran ones), yet maintain a reverential and liturgical approach to it that you won’t find at evangelical megas.
Another example is the Assyrian church I mentioned earlier. They, interestingly enough, use sourdough for communion, which is leavened using a piece of the dough saved from the previous batch. Thus maintaining the same crop of yeast for (according to their tradition) two millennia!
Bridget wrote:
To clarify ‘inclusive’ in who they view as POSSIBLE candidates for salvation in the eyes of God’:
the Mercy of God is greater than we can know, and that He gave all mankind consciences and calls to them through His Creation so that a person of good will who is trying to reach for God but has no chance to learn of Jesus Christ in his life might , through the workings of the Holy Spirit within his conscience, still be blessed by the Paschal Mystery in ways known only to God, and may therefore be ‘saved’. In short, I am willing to let God be God, and not to ‘assume’ the salvation of any person, or the damnation of any person, but instead trust in Jesus Christ and the great mercy of God completely for the sake of those who do not know Christ through no fault of their own.
this is NOT an evangelical belief, no
Ken F wrote:
Technically the RCC is Closed Communion, but as long as you behave yourself and don’t act suspicious, nobody will ask any questions.
Muff Potter wrote:
Without activating any neuron above the brainstem.
7Muff Potter wrote:
Not to mention the promise of fabulous wealth and prizes if you are a man who follows the leader!
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
“BUT THAT”S NOT FAIR!!!!!”
— cry of a trid gamer who got caught
Lydia wrote:
Because you were not Predestined to be in the Inner Ring of Illuminati.
Nancy2 wrote:
That’s how he counsels abused folks at his church. Not surprised. His church’s handling of mental health led to one young man committing suicide years ago.
Anyway. About his horrible advice there about abuse and marriage. This is why if I ever married and ended up with an abuser, I would not waste my time going to a church to help.
The only “help” most churches grant to an abused wife is to tell her ‘sorry you are stuck with the guy just pray and submit more.’ It’s a life long prison sentence no one deserves.
It’s not compassionate to expect a woman to stay married to an abuser.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
This is true of my church. They say ‘this is the lords table and you are welcome’.
I had a friend who went to catholic school and wasn’t allowed to take communion at school and I thought that seems especially wrong.
Christiane wrote:
I have always believed this.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
What mainline denoms are you referring to? Catholics, some Baptists, some Lutheran, and many Presbyterian don’t?
Episcopal, Methodist, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox are open?
Bridget wrote:
United Methodists and Evangelical Lutherans are traditionally open, this I know from experience.
Bridget wrote:
Eastern Orthodox aren’t open communion. The (much, much smaller) Assyrian Church of the East is.
I believe Anglicans, Methodists, etc., all have open communion, at least if you’re baptized (doesn’t matter where as long as it was Trinitarian).
Bridget wrote:
ELCA Lutheran is open.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I’d occasionally go to mass with my boyfriend and the only people who caused a kerfuffle were the ones who insisted on kneeling when they got to the front of the communion line. I seem to recall the bishop finally clamping down and saying No More for church order reasons. This would have been around 15 years ago. And yeah, dropping to one’s knees really did clog up the line, especially since it was explained to me that these people would only take the Eucharist from a priest.
Muff Potter wrote:
For presby pcusa is open in my experience. Pca maybe not? I don’t know how much is decided local level.
Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:
Well, they can all excommunicate each other and then feel righteously justified in doing so. It seems there are quite a few Only, One, True churches around.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I was having a discussion about marriage and divorce over on Facebook the other day. A fella who subscribes to *No Divorce For Any Reason* chimed in. I responded by saying he has his opinion, and many other godly Christians disagree with him. He hurled back several paragraphs of SCRIPTURE, much of it in BOLD letters. Along with it he basically stated that those who disagree with him are rebelling against God, etc., etc., etc. His response was more like a sermon with VERSES, VERSES, AND MORE VERSES.
Darlene wrote:
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
(Wm. Shakespeare, ‘The Merchant of Venice’)
Christiane wrote:
Actually there is a segment of thinking including in evangelical thinking that looks at Roman 1 and comes up with pretty much the same idea. William Lane Craig wrote about it that yes they can, but usually they don’t seem to be doing it, but who knows. Those are my words to summarize what I understood him to be saying. In addition to his own career and also his apologetics work he is a member and SS teacher at some SBC mega in Atlanta?? but his background is something else. What he has said is well within the limits of evangelical thinking, bearing in mind that evangelical goes all the way from non-calvinist to calvinist with lots of dots on the line in between. And, I promise you, if Dr Craig said it then some of the cream of the cream of the young male evangelical would be intelligentsia already have it processed and filed away in their thinking. And filed away, I need to add, under ‘the bible says’, not under ‘the church says’ which would be the major difference in how one gets to that position, it seems to me.
okrapod wrote:
to us ‘they’ may not seem to be moving towards the Light, but God will know and He sees what we cannot know …. I am trusting …. I think ‘trusting in Jesus Christ’ is different from ‘knowing I’m saved’ in this way: it keeps me from judging my status or the status of others, it keeps me from ‘hubris’ and from pride. All too often we hear about people who know they are ‘saved’ mistreating other people, but I wonder if they truly know because if they did, their lives would be radiant instead of negative and abusive to others. We cannot see what God sees, but we can have faith in a God we can trust and have complete hope in. Better to pray ‘Jesus Christ, Son, Savior, have mercy on me’ than to point the finger and compare our ‘saved’ selves to those we ‘know’ are ‘not saved’…… Our Lord told us a teaching about that very thing.
@ Deb:
Is “The Grace of Church Discipline” an oxymoron?
@ Velour:
Thank you for keeping Shauna and Billy on our minds. 🙂
Darlene wrote:
“I’M RIGHT BECAUSE I’M LOUDER!”
Darlene wrote:
It’s the theoretical ultimate End State of Protestantism:
MILLIONS of One True Churches, each with only ONE member, each denouncing and excommunicating all the others as Heretics and Apostates.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
Sounds like Trads. Did they also insist on Tridentine Latin Mass?
The Hill-of-Hopers cult went one step further — they would only take Eucharist from a priest who had been personally vetted by Mary & Joseph through the visions of the cult leader.
Exactly. Well put and almost identical to my situation. This resonates with me.
siteseer wrote:
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Another example of Foolish Things (a cartoon kid and toy tiger/imaginary friend) confounding the Wise.
Darlene wrote:
“… adummy stuffed with straw with a Victrola for a mouth.”
— some story from my school days; I think it was titled “Your Honesty”
Is it because the second lady had some verbal abuse but on physical abuse or danger?@ Daisy: